Microservices

My old company Canva, was pretty good about this and I'm bringing that to the culture at my current place. Krazam has excellently parodied this unserious naming indulgence of programmers[1]. "See, Bingo knows everyone's name-O. So we get the user ID from there." Racoon, Wingman, EKS (Entropy Chaos Service), RGS, Barbie Doll, Ringo-2. 1. ▶ this video

"Delivering this feature goes against everything I know to be right and true. And I will sooner lay you into this barren earth, than entertain your folly for a moment longer." -- Krazam, "Microservices", ▶ this video

good article see also this important technical clarity video -which I think is very realistic to real life technical conversations with management: ▶ this video I think a lot of engineers would rather try to solve a thorny technical problem or even re-architect a whole system than have to explain anything in words to a senior manager or VP. As a result, those of us who can communicate well in both engineering and management speak tend to rise in the ranks More seriously, good communication is REALLY REALLY hard -communication is not writing a good article, doc or giving a good lecture on the backend. communication is making sure the intended audience understands the situation well enough to make an informed decision on the task in hand. It means getting feedback on their understanding of the situation, trying repeated ways to get your message heard until it does. -What I mean is having empathy for the audience or recipient's point of view and spending time to make sure they understand what you are telling them.

Yeah, but OmegaStar still doesn't support ISO timestamps like they said they would a month ago! (Reference: ▶ this video )

> Even if the Netflix microservices architecture is an objectively good idea (which I honestly have no opinion on I have no opinion on that either, but at least this[0] story by ThePrimeagen didn't make it sound all too great. (Watch this classic[1] before for context, unless you already know Wingman, Galactus, etc.) [0]: link [1]: ▶ this video

The Big Tech monolith (`bingo`, `papaya`, etc.) is a fantastic callback to this video: ▶ this video . Although that video is perhaps ironically about microservices.

> but now I'm an adult that wouldn't call an official war strike "Operation Beastmaster" (real name from the Iraq invasion). Why? That name’s dope. If you can’t give cool names to military operations of all things, then you can’t give cool names to anything. And as someone else pointed out, the US military does have a framework for how they name operations. They at least avoid sounding like our names in the software industry: ▶ this video :P

I realize you're being sarcastic (I think), but I actually would put microservices in the same boat. There was a huge push to microservices in the mid teens, and a lot of companies came to hugely regret it. There is a reason this video, ▶ this video , is so popular. And it's not that "no one is using microservices", it's just that tons of companies realized they added almost as many complications as they alleviated, and that for many teams they were just way too premature. And a lot of the companies that I've seen have the most success with microservices are also the most pragmatic about them: they use them in some specific, targeted areas (e.g. authn and authz), but otherwise they're content using a well-componentized monolith where they can break off independent services later if there is an explicit reason to do so.

Congratulations, you are one of today's lucky 10,000 [1] to discover Krazam. Start with Microservices: ▶ this video [1] link

Anything in a foreign language seems to be impenetrable to Google Play. It's also got a goldfish brain so when you reject an incorrect guess it'll make the exact same guess next time. Doesn't seem hard with a an entire datacentre of ML servers to go "hmm, this was wrong 5 seconds ago, maybe it's still wrong now". But then again this is how I imagine it works, so maybe its just waiting for the new previous query service to be released: ▶ this video

I think we are mixing two different scopes in the the discussion here. If you are naming a company or a product that will be offered to clients, name it something unique that'll appear in searches. However, if you're writing a piece of software that's not going to go outside the company, having descriptive name is the way to go. You can even name your products with generic descriptive names, if your company's name is unique enough, then that'll act as a namespace for product with generic names. Think of packages in Java, C#, we don't debate about that we have to use a cute name for a X.java or X.CS, because that problem has already been solved by namespaces. Product name Excel and Office works for Microsoft because that "Microsoft" acts as namespace and "Microsoft Office" and "Microsoft Excel" are unique enough to be fully qualified names. The ntietz entry is talking about using cute names for internal services, which is very bad idea. Please enjoy ▶ this video

To add one new property to an existing entity we need to currently update and deploy 5 services multiplied by review / testing / acceptance / production environments plus the api client and sometimes the messages depending on what kind of field it is. So it takes 3-5 hours instead of 20-30 minutes. This pretty much sums up our current situation: ▶ this video