Is it just pedantry? Even in the strongliest of practical strongly typed languages, two functions with the same signatures might fail to return on some inputs in the new version that it didn't in the old.
That's a practical distinction I care about that can't be computed.
When she's discussing Compensations she mentions that the Transaction (T_i) can't have an input dependency on T_i-1. What are some things I should be thinking about when I have hard, ordered dependencies between microservice tasks? For example, microservice 2 (M2) requires output from M1, so the final ordering would be something like: M1 -> M2 -> M1.
Currently, I'm using a high-level, coordinating service to accomplish these long-running async tasks, with each M just sending messages to the top-level coordinator. I'd like to switch to a better pattern though, as I scale out services.
Nice, thanks for sharing! I had not heard of this pattern before.
The only nit I have on that video is that after a great motivation and summary, their example application at the end (processing game statistics in Halo) didn’t seem to need Sagas at all. Their transactions (both at the game level and at the player level) were fully idempotent and could be implemented in a vanilla queue/log processor without defining any compensating transactions, unless there were additional complexities not mentioned in the talk.
Earnestly: Yes. But there may well be programming tasks or jobs that they are suited to, for which no understanding of boolean logic will make no difference on a day to day basis.
If you are a parent with a school-aged child, and you want to fix a deficiency you perceive in calculus education, it's easier to get strong at calculus and teach your child yourself than it is to reform the education establishment.
Do you have a citation for that first claim? It fits my prejudices so neatly that I'd like to see the proof. I've tried to google a little for it with no success, so my apologies for any imposition.
Haven't read it & it's 8 years old, but here's this. Hopefully it'll point you toward better search terms. I used "what would jesus do brain imaging" without quotes.
> And frankly, if you can't point to bugs or performance issues, it's likely you don't need to be refactoring in the first place!
I feel this is a lack of clarity around the word refactoring. Improving the code in a way that fixes bugs is "bug fixing", in a way that makes it do its job faster is "optimisation" and in a way that improves the design is "refactoring".
Of course one can do several of them at the same time. And add features, at least in the small.
Refactoring can be a valuable activity for bits of a code base where the cost of change could be usefully reduced. It's useful to have a word that can be used to describe that activity that isn't commonly conflated with bug-fixing or optimisation.
At least one blogger preferred Googles assistant because she was ordering around an impersonal un-gendered corporation rather than what felt like an individual.
That said, this does seem like a great opportunity for Ask to bring Jeeves back.
As someone who's quirked the odd sceptical eyebrow at base metabolic rate charts, that's a helpful way of looking at it. Thanks!