undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTainnor1y ago0 comments

You can't compare Microsoft to your run-of-the-mill small (or even large) software shop, though. Maybe on HN, most people work on these amazingly designed systems, but in my experience most tech out there is shit and has no proper design or architecture beyond "we're doing microservices because everyone is".

0 comments

marcosdumay1y ago

> You can't compare Microsoft to your run-of-the-mill small (or even large) software shop, though.

True. Your run-of-the-mill shop should have a simpler and more straight-forward system.

But you seem to want the reverse.

animal_spirits1y ago

No one wants the reverse, I would love if my microservices were perfectly isolated little boxes with known inputs and outputs! That would make my life easier. But I don’t have the ownership over the planning process and our sales person already told our customer we’d have the new feature they asked for that no one on the engineering team knew about delivered by next sprint. It would be nice if my company planned things well! But they don’t

therealdrag01y ago

So then it’s bad engineering being wagged by Sales, not some expected sane choice.

2 more replies

chipdart1y ago

> You can't compare Microsoft to your run-of-the-mill small (or even large) software shop, though.

I'm talking about how Microsoft added support for connected services to Visual Studio. It's literally a tool that anyone in the world can use. They added the feature to address existing customer needs.

TainnorOP1y ago

Apart from the fact that not everyone uses Visual Studio, "connected services" appears to be something by which you can connect to existing cloud-based services.

How does that solve the problem of a mess of interconnected services where you may have to change 3 or more of them simultaneously in order to implement a change?

chipdart1y ago

> Apart from the fact that not everyone uses Visual Studio, "connected services" appears to be something by which you can connect to existing cloud-based services.

Yes. That's the point.

> How does that solve the problem of a mess of interconnected services (...)

I don't think you got the point.

The whole point is that you only need to connect your local deployment to services that are up and running. There is absolutely no need to launch a set of ad-hoc self-contained services to run a service locally and work on it. That is the whole point.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

marcosdumay1y ago

> You can't compare Microsoft to your run-of-the-mill small (or even large) software shop, though.

True. Your run-of-the-mill shop should have a simpler and more straight-forward system.

But you seem to want the reverse.

animal_spirits1y ago

therealdrag01y ago

So then it’s bad engineering being wagged by Sales, not some expected sane choice.

2 more replies

chipdart1y ago

> You can't compare Microsoft to your run-of-the-mill small (or even large) software shop, though.

TainnorOP1y ago

Apart from the fact that not everyone uses Visual Studio, "connected services" appears to be something by which you can connect to existing cloud-based services.

How does that solve the problem of a mess of interconnected services where you may have to change 3 or more of them simultaneously in order to implement a change?

chipdart1y ago

> Apart from the fact that not everyone uses Visual Studio, "connected services" appears to be something by which you can connect to existing cloud-based services.

Yes. That's the point.

> How does that solve the problem of a mess of interconnected services (...)

I don't think you got the point.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse