lolxmlhateonhn

I like rigid schemas for write and supporting both loose and rigid reads. Generally the friction in a system like that is something like the ad hoc SRE trying to load up a type stack just to interpret a protobuf log. Or Tableau. Stuff like that. That’s where people get annoyed. I think you’re right and there’s a lot of unexplored directions of simplicity.

Computers that understand the shape of your data are very helpful friends when you’re pursuing goals like data locality.

That’s called “schema.” It’s a pretty out there concept, I know, the idea that you should be burdened to document the structure and intent of your data for both human and mechanical consumption. I realize I’m being forceful here, but keep in mind, you are compensated incredibly well. If it takes you another hour to save ten down the road, earn the pay. I don’t understand this aversion to tough stuff - which seems to be pretty popular here - and I’m starting to think I should interview for it a bit harder than I already do.

The problem with this thinking is that you, personally, are then forbidden from arguing for the use of a strictly typed language for development because it’s the opposite position to the one you’re holding here. The exact reasons we use languages like those are the same reasons we should be explicit with our schemas. It’s unfortunate that many people try to argue both sides due to the convenience, as you say, of a single line parse, when years of experience has taught that duck anything is a bug fountain. (Not saying you are arguing both, by the way, it’s just common.)

Try reading back your gripe with the following in mind: do I have a stronger complaint than “it’s difficult” here? I think you’ll find that you don’t convey one effectively.