the engineering skill here is the ability to trade off risk vs benefit... I will tell you from my own experience the best designed software systems I have personally dealt with tend to use components somewhat behind the curve.
the engineering skill here is the ability to trade off risk vs benefit... I will tell you from my own experience the best designed software systems I have personally dealt with tend to use components somewhat behind the curve.
For me the best software systems are those that are well architected and use the best available technology. This doesn't mean we all should be writing Tomcat, Oracle, Apache stacks just because they are less shiny.
As a small startup, you might not have the time for extensive testing and patching of new hot technologies, which facebook, twitter, netflix do.
And not sure if you've worked for a large company but they largely comprise lots of little startups sized teams. The same principles apply regardless e.g. spiking technologies out, managing risk etc.
What I have an issue with is these stupid generalisations. Less shiny = good, Shiny = bad. The merits of the architecture and technology seemed to be completely ignored.
Which then translates to buggier software as you add more and more new features.
There is a reason we rewrite codebases, no ?
With less shiny I mean that it's old. Not that it is crummy qualitywise. Old code is not like wine. If it was crap then it will be crap now. Old code is like an old house. If it's well made and tended to, and built on solid principles it can last generations.
Extensible domain logic is something that generally does not age well. Old utility libraries with well defined interfaces, on the other hand, are invaluable in technical computing.
If you don't run at the same scale as those guys you won't hit those same limits. But if you do reach the scale of those guy's you will find that your needs are suddenly very much a unique snowflake that will require you either creating something new or heavily tweaking something that already exists.
Plenty of time for that when you reach the scale that justifies it though.
The point is, if you are going to bet your business on a technology, it helps if it has been tested with production workloads in many different conditions and scales. You want to know about as many shortcomings as you can. For many of the use cases that people use things like Cassandra for, they will be tolerant of 30ms++ reads and potential read inversions. Redis is used pretty heavily, but it is relatively simple code and you can trace through the entire writepath pretty easily and get a sense of its limitations (being single threaded is a blessing and a curse, you really need to be careful about bad tenants because a single slow query will cause an availability event for everyone). HBase is used in a few places, but usually only for cold data after they expect it to be read only occasionally and they don't want to use up space on their MySQL pci flash devices for it anymore. There are a bunch more, but they all have some latency, consistency, or availability downsides compared to a traditional sharded B+ tree backed transactional store.