2,363 karma · joined February 24, 2012
Many, mostly small, companies just cannot justify an IT department to mitigate Bf1/2 risks. Also, most times this bus factor problem manifests in non-IT jobs too: sales, contract law, accounting functions.
Small companies need to first become big companies to afford de-risking from BF1. Part of the growth story really.
Finally: https://youglish.com/pronounce/been/english?
"Been" pronounced "bin" is slowly moving to "ben" (mostly in the US usage).
They worked and they were necessary.
Things changed when internet connectivity eventually became cheap and ubiquitous and the complexity of developing such applications then didn't merit the effort.
Now, the swing back to "local-first" is mainly for user-experience reasons. The same theoretical complexities of "eventually synchronised" that existed for the "briefcase app" are still present.
Is the complexity worth it though?
The top Reddit response cites some good reasons why this may be so. The writer mentions they needed to move from Node to improve "throughput" (and .NET was suggested). In what way would .NET improve performance that Node can't satisfy. (Isn't Node's worker thread sufficiently close to ASP.NET, ISAPI multi-threaded scenarios?)
So, would the better advice not have been to use simpler SQL instead of complex recursive statements, instead of taking a drastic approach to abandon ship (move logic to a completely new layer)?
Also, if you're doing string concats manually for your Json, this might cause some overhead for larger objects. ??
Why are functions and procedures (an abstraction layer at db layer) considered harmful to performance when the same abstraction layer will be required at the application layer (introducing out of process overhead and possibly network traffic)? I don't agree with this advice. (Or I don't understand it.)
Can you guess which music video that’s from?
My problem with CM: his themes of post-apocalyptic, desperate humanity at war with itself and the singular savagery of ONE man against all - takes the assumed position that humans by nature (generally, of course) will almost always reduce to selfish savagery even to the point of normalising cannibalism. Of course, he needed to create this assumed backdrop for many of his stories (eg The Road needed this literally visceral danger for a father to demonstrate his instinctive protection for his only son) but CM's imagined scenario of a society that's eating itself is far from real evidence we have seen of humans. Real evidence shows that during catastrophic moments like earthquakes and prolonged famine and even war, human societies have shown remarkable strength to save and to protect and to help one another, sometimes at great individual sacrifice.
I know you can't criticise a work of fiction this way, an author is entitled his artistic philosophy and outlook. But when the writing is so masterful, when the rest of the philosophies of the stories are so elevated and cerebrally engaging, one can't help but find the story of humans cultivating others for food jarring and out of place.
(This is my first "criticism" of any work of literature.)
When did "data binding" become "reactivity" (why the need to create a whole new lexicon for the same ol' thing)? A lot of this confusion (as per the OP) could have simply been explained away by saying we needed frameworks to bind HTML (visual components) to data. Two-way binding existed in many desktop frameworks before SPAs were even thought of.
edit: The objects that are IUnknown linked don't even need to be explicitly freed! There are several clever use cases for this for example changing TCursor from hourglass back to normal when a procedure/function is complete. It just works.