Hacker News Reader

maybe i'm too far gone, but this doesn't even feel hacky to me. the key needs to be a unique number, -1 and 1 are two different numbers.

View on HN

Yeah but how many of those customers were relying on the key not being a negative number?

Assuming the API was properly documented as returning signed int, that’s not my problem. Abuse of the API or misunderstanding of the API doesn’t trump running out of space.

Exactly. I mean, if the end solution is to convert to a big int, who’s to say that some customer didn’t assume it would always be 32 bits and blow up then, too.

This does highlight the fact that 32 bit is just a small number these days. Personally, I prefer UUIDs instead of incrementing integers for primary keys since they also scale out without having to have global coordination, but at least choose a 64-bit number.

Yes. It's just so much easier to create a UUID client-side, use that to identify data in temporary UI state and commit without having to worry about getting the incremented identifier.

I find this significantly reduces decision fatigue. Deciding which hack to use for temporary identifiers is not much fun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com