Comment by antonvs
15 days ago
Yeah it’s a pity that wasn’t addressed in the article.
This is a little like “we shot ourselves in the foot and then performed surgery on our foot, and everything is resolved now.”
15 days ago
Yeah it’s a pity that wasn’t addressed in the article.
This is a little like “we shot ourselves in the foot and then performed surgery on our foot, and everything is resolved now.”
That assumes that they do actually believe it's a mistake. They didn't explain the reasons they've gone for this architecture in much/any detail. I'd be interested in hearing them talk more about that in the future.
Perhaps you or I would make a different decision based on the aims that lead them there. But there isn't enough information to say whether or not their decision was a mistake, even if it has lead to a peculiar bug. It may be perfectly legitimate and we just don't know some of the constraints they had.
Right, the point is it's a kind of elephant in the room - they even allude to it not being a common use case - but they say nothing about the rationale. That leads me to suspect it was a kind of "seemed like a good idea at the time" situation.
They also touch on this when they say that it worked for them for a long time.
This is a pretty classic symptom of a system that was designed a certain way early on and then runs into issues as the system grows.
One can argue that this was due to a bug, but it's a bug that they shouldn't really have had to deal with - a consequence that the design opened them up to.