dce/davideisinger.com
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Choose boring technology

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
David Eisinger
2023-07-03 23:40:58 -04:00
parent 923865782b
commit fa13fce51f
2 changed files with 266 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
content/notes/first-it-must-work/index.md
View File

@@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ references:
url: https://techxplore.com/news/2023-06-problems.html
date: 2023-07-03T21:19:28Z
file: techxplore-com-8o7hmu.txt
- title: "Dan McKinley :: Choose Boring Technology"
url: https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology
date: 2023-07-04T03:40:17Z
file: mcfunley-com-5myzcq.txt
---
### Thoughts on priorities in software development
@@ -51,9 +55,11 @@ references:
* [Imaginary Problems Are the Root of Bad Software][5]
* [When to Build Millennia Sewers][6]
* [We are wasting up to 20% of our time on computer problems, says study][7]
* [Choose Boring Technology][8]
[3]: https://grugbrain.dev/
[4]: https://world.hey.com/dhh/even-amazon-can-t-make-sense-of-serverless-or-microservices-59625580
[5]: https://cerebralab.com/Imaginary_Problems_Are_the_Root_of_Bad_Software
[6]: https://taylor.town/millennium-sewer
[7]: https://techxplore.com/news/2023-06-problems.html
[8]: https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology

260
static/archive/mcfunley-com-5myzcq.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,260 @@
#[1]alternate
[2]
Dan McKinley
Math, Programming, and Minority Reports
[3]Tweet [4]Follow @mcfunley
[5]Choose Boring Technology
March 30th, 2015
Probably the single best thing to happen to me in my career was having
had [6]Kellan placed in charge of me. I stuck around long enough to see
Kellanâs technical decisionmaking start to bear fruit. I learned a
great deal from this, but I also learned a great deal as a result of
this. I would not have been free to become the engineer that wrote
[7]Data Driven Products Now! if Kellan had not been there to so
thoroughly stick the landing on technology choices.
[FRQKLCy.jpg] Being inspirational as always.
In the year since leaving Etsy, Iâve resurrected my ability to care
about technology. And my thoughts have crystallized to the point where
I can write them down coherently. What follows is a distillation of the
Kellan gestalt, which will hopefully serve to horrify him only
slightly.
Embrace Boredom.
Letâs say every company gets about three innovation tokens. You can
spend these however you want, but the supply is fixed for a long while.
You might get a few more after you achieve a [8]certain level of
stability and maturity, but the general tendency is to overestimate the
contents of your wallet. Clearly this model is approximate, but I think
it helps.
If you choose to write your website in NodeJS, you just spent one of
your innovation tokens. If you choose to use [9]MongoDB, you just spent
one of your innovation tokens. If you choose to use [10]service
discovery tech thatâs existed for a year or less, you just spent one of
your innovation tokens. If you choose to write your own database, oh
god, youâre in trouble.
Any of those choices might be sensible if youâre a javascript
consultancy, or a database company. But youâre probably not. Youâre
probably working for a company that is at least ostensibly
[11]rethinking global commerce or [12]reinventing payments on the web
or pursuing some other suitably epic mission. In that context, devoting
any of your limited attention to innovating ssh is an excellent way to
fail. Or at best, delay success [13][1].
What counts as boring? Thatâs a little tricky. âBoringâ should not be
conflated with âbad.â There is technology out there that is both boring
and bad [14][2]. You should not use any of that. But there are many
choices of technology that are boring and good, or at least good
enough. MySQL is boring. Postgres is boring. PHP is boring. Python is
boring. Memcached is boring. Squid is boring. Cron is boring.
The nice thing about boringness (so constrained) is that the
capabilities of these things are well understood. But more importantly,
their failure modes are well understood. Anyone who knows me well will
understand that itâs only with a overwhelming sense of malaise that I
now invoke the spectre of Don Rumsfeld, but I must.
[n8ElWr3.jpg] To be clear, fuck this guy.
When choosing technology, you have both known unknowns and unknown
unknowns [15][3].
* A known unknown is something like: we donât know what happens when
this database hits 100% CPU.
* An unknown unknown is something like: geez it didnât even occur to
us that [16]writing stats would cause GC pauses.
Both sets are typically non-empty, even for tech thatâs existed for
decades. But for shiny new technology the magnitude of unknown unknowns
is significantly larger, and this is important.
Optimize Globally.
I unapologetically think a bias in favor of boring technology is a good
thing, but itâs not the only factor that needs to be considered.
Technology choices donât happen in isolation. They have a scope that
touches your entire team, organization, and the system that emerges
from the sum total of your choices.
Adding technology to your company comes with a cost. As an abstract
statement this is obvious: if weâre already using Ruby, adding Python
to the mix doesnât feel sensible because the resulting complexity would
outweigh Pythonâs marginal utility. But somehow when weâre talking
about Python and Scala or MySQL and Redis people [17]lose their minds,
discard all constraints, and start raving about using the best tool for
the job.
[18]Your function in a nutshell is to map business problems onto a
solution space that involves choices of software. If the choices of
software were truly without baggage, you could indeed pick a whole mess
of locally-the-best tools for your assortment of problems.
Created with Sketch. Problems Technical Solutions The way you might
choose technology in a world where choices are cheap: "pick the right
tool for the job."
But of course, the baggage exists. We call the baggage âoperationsâ and
to a lesser extent âcognitive overhead.â You have to monitor the thing.
You have to figure out unit tests. You need to know the first thing
about it to hack on it. You need an init script. I could go on for days
here, and all of this adds up fast.
Created with Sketch. Problems Technical Solutions The way you choose
technology in the world where operations are a serious concern (i.e.,
"reality").
The problem with âbest tool for the jobâ thinking is that it takes a
myopic view of the words âbestâ and âjob.â Your job is keeping the
company in business, god damn it. And the âbestâ tool is the one that
occupies the âleast worstâ position for as many of your problems as
possible.
It is basically always the case that the long-term costs of keeping a
system working reliably vastly exceed any inconveniences you encounter
while building it. Mature and productive developers understand this.
Choose New Technology, Sometimes.
Taking this reasoning to its reductio ad absurdum would mean picking
Java, and then trying to implement a website without using anything
else at all. And that would be crazy. You need some means to add things
to your toolbox.
An important first step is to acknowledge that this is a process, and a
conversation. New tech eventually has company-wide effects, so adding
tech is a decision that requires company-wide visibility. Your
organizational specifics may force the conversation, or [19]they may
facilitate developers adding new databases and queues without talking
to anyone. One way or another you have to set cultural expectations
that this is something we all talk about.
One of the most worthwhile exercises I recommend here is to consider
how you would solve your immediate problem without adding anything new.
First, posing this question should detect the situation where the
âproblemâ is that someone really wants to use the technology. If that
is the case, you should immediately abort.
[rmdSx.gif] I just watched a webinar about this graph database, we
should try it out.
It can be amazing how far a small set of technology choices can go. The
answer to this question in practice is almost never âwe canât do it,â
itâs usually just somewhere on the spectrum of âwell, we could do it,
but it would be too hardâ [20][4]. If you think you canât accomplish
your goals with what youâve got now, you are probably just not thinking
creatively enough.
Itâs helpful to write down exactly what it is about the current stack
that makes solving the problem prohibitively expensive and difficult.
This is related to the previous exercise, but itâs subtly different.
New technology choices might be purely additive (for example: âwe donât
have caching yet, so letâs add memcachedâ). But they might also overlap
or replace things you are already using. If thatâs the case, you should
set clear expectations about migrating old functionality to the new
system. The policy should typically be âweâre committed to migrating,â
with a proposed timeline. The intention of this step is to keep
wreckage at manageable levels, and to avoid proliferating
locally-optimal solutions.
This process is not daunting, and itâs not much of a hassle. Itâs a
handful of questions to fill out as homework, followed by a meeting to
talk about it. I think that if a new technology (or a new service to be
created on your infrastructure) can pass through this gauntlet
unscathed, adding it is fine.
Just Ship.
Polyglot programming is sold with the promise that letting developers
choose their own tools with complete freedom will make them more
effective at solving problems. This is a naive definition of the
problems at best, and motivated reasoning at worst. The weight of
day-to-day operational [21]toil this creates crushes you to death.
Mindful choice of technology gives engineering minds real freedom: the
freedom to [22]contemplate bigger questions. Technology for its own
sake is snake oil.
Update, July 27th 2015: I wrote a talk based on this article. You can
see it [23]here.
__________________________________________________________________
1. Etsy in its early years suffered from this pretty badly. We hired a
bunch of Python programmers and decided that we needed to find
something for them to do in Python, and the only thing that came to
mind was creating a pointless middle layer that [24]required years
of effort to amputate. Meanwhile, the 90th percentile search
latency was about two minutes. [25]Etsy didn't fail, but it went
several years without shipping anything at all. So it took longer
to succeed than it needed to.
2. We often casually refer to the boring/bad intersection of doom as
“enterprise software,” but that terminology may be imprecise.
3. In saying this Rumsfeld was either intentionally or unintentionally
alluding to [26]the Socratic Paradox. Socrates was by all accounts
a thoughtful individual in a number of ways that Rumsfeld is not.
4. A good example of this from my experience is [27]Etsy’s activity
feeds. When we built this feature, we were working pretty hard to
consolidate most of Etsy onto PHP, MySQL, Memcached, and Gearman (a
PHP job server). It was much more complicated to implement the
feature on that stack than it might have been with something like
Redis (or [28]maybe not). But it is absolutely possible to build
activity feeds on that stack.
An amazing thing happened with that project: our attention turned
elsewhere for several years. During that time, activity feeds
scaled up 20x while nobody was watching it at all. We made no
changes whatsoever specifically targeted at activity feeds, but
everything worked out fine as usage exploded because we were using
a shared platform. This is the long-term benefit of restraint in
technology choices in a nutshell.
This isn’t an absolutist position--while activity feeds stored in
memcached was judged to be practical, implementing full text search
with faceting in raw PHP wasn't. So Etsy used Solr.
[29]Back home
[30]Tweet [31]Follow @mcfunley
* [32]GitHub
* [33]LinkedIn
[34]Feed | Copyright © 2004-2023 Dan McKinley.
References
1. https://mcfunley.com/feed.xml
2. file:///
3. https://twitter.com/intent/tweet
4. https://twitter.com/mcfunley
5. file:///choose-boring-technology
6. http://laughingmeme.org/
7. file:///data-driven-products-lean-startup-2014
8. http://rc3.org/2015/03/24/the-pleasure-of-building-big-things/
9. file:///why-mongodb-never-worked-out-at-etsy
10. https://consul.io/
11. https://www.etsy.com/
12. https://stripe.com/
13. file:///var/folders/q9/qlz2w5251kzdfgn0np7z2s4c0000gn/T/L21912-441TMP.html#f1
14. file:///var/folders/q9/qlz2w5251kzdfgn0np7z2s4c0000gn/T/L21912-441TMP.html#f2
15. file:///var/folders/q9/qlz2w5251kzdfgn0np7z2s4c0000gn/T/L21912-441TMP.html#f3
16. http://www.evanjones.ca/jvm-mmap-pause.html
17. http://martinfowler.com/bliki/PolyglotPersistence.html
18. https://twitter.com/coda/status/580531932393504768
19. https://twitter.com/mcfunley/status/578603932949164032
20. file:///var/folders/q9/qlz2w5251kzdfgn0np7z2s4c0000gn/T/L21912-441TMP.html#f4
21. https://twitter.com/handler
22. file:///effective-web-experimentation-as-a-homo-narrans
23. http://boringtechnology.club/
24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eenrfm50mXw
25. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1370637/000119312515077045/d806992ds1.htm
26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing
27. https://speakerdeck.com/mcfunley/etsy-activity-feed-architecture
28. https://aphyr.com/posts/283-call-me-maybe-redis
29. file:///
30. https://twitter.com/intent/tweet
31. https://twitter.com/mcfunley
32. https://github.com/mcfunley
33. https://www.linkedin.com/in/mcfunley
34. https://mcfunley.com/feed.xml