Comment by lmm
2 days ago
> If the system is complex enough and there are always incoming changes, there is never a point in time in these "eventually consistent systems" that they are in consistent state.
Sure, but that fact is almost never relevant. (And most systems do have periods where there aren't incoming changes, even if it's only when there's a big Internet outage). What would be the benefit in using that as a name?
It is highly relevant in many contexts. I see in my work all the time that developers building frontends on top of microservices believe that because the system is called "eventually consistent", they can ignore consistency issues in refences between objects, causing flaky apps.
> I see in my work all the time that developers building frontends on top of microservices believe that because the system is called "eventually consistent", they can ignore consistency issues in refences between objects, causing flaky apps.
If someone misunderstands that badly, why would one believe they would do any better if it was called "never consistent"?
That is a fair point, although I believe that misleading name is contributing to the confusion.