My interpretation is that this had little to do with specifics of RFCs, and everything to do with the verbal culture described.

I don’t care what format you use in terms of both process and also literal format. Just write shit down.

Please don’t fall into the Fowler-said-so trap.

Just because he says something does not mean Fowler “formalized the term”. Martin wrote about every topic under the sun, and he loved renaming and or redefining things to fit his world view, and incidentally drive people not just to his blog but also to his consultancy, Thoughtworks.

PS The “single application” line shows how dated Fowlers view were then and certainly are today.

I've been developing under that understanding since before Fowler-said-so. His take is simply a description of a phenomenon predating the moniker of microservices. SOA with things like CORBA, WSDL, UDDI, Java services in app servers etc. was a take on service oriented architectures that had many problems.

Anyone who has ever developed in a Java codebase with "Service" and then "ServiceImpl"s everywhere can see the lineage of that model. Services were supposed to be the API, and the implementation provided in a separate process container. Microservices signalled a time where SOA without Java as a pre-requisite had been successful in large tech companies. They had reached the point of needing even more granular breakout and a reduction of reliance on Java. HTTP interfaces was an enabler of that. 2010s era microservices people never understood the basics, and many don't even know what they're criticizing.

I think you are confusing limitations of Java at the time with something else. Interfaces everywhere and single implementation classes has nothing at all to do with Microservices or SOA.

Thank you this is the point

Loved your sentence at the end about tar -cvf.

Every generation seems to have to learn the lesson about batching small inputs together to keep throughput up.

I wish the article had stuck with the technical topic at hand and left out the embellishment. In particular the opening piece talking about what is happening outside the exchange.

What happens outside the exchange really doesn’t matter. The ordering will not happen until it hits the exchange.

And that is why algorithmic traders want their algos in a closet as close to the exchange both physically and also in terms of network hops as possible.

I don’t understand why you would have a logging microservice vs just having a library that provides logging that is used wherever you need logging.

Only good reason would be for bulk log searching, but a lot of cloud providers will already capture and aggregate and let you query logs, or there are good third party services that do this.

Pretty handy to search a debug_request_id or something and be able to see every log across all services related to a request.

> but a lot of cloud providers will already capture and aggregate and let you query logs

This is just the cloud provider taking the dependency on their logging service for you. It doesn’t change the shape of the graph.

Logs need to go somewhere to be collected, viewed, etc. You might outsource that, but if you don't it's a service of it's own (probably actually a collection of microservices, ingestion, a web server to view them, etc)

In my experience this is best done as an out of band flow in the background eg one of the zillion services that collect and aggregate logs.

Wherever Robert Heinlein is right now, he is shaking his head sadly. Told ya so......

I moved largely away from Microsoft products in 2010 personally, and 2015 or so professionally. Just came back to them last year for a client.

What I am seeing are two really disturbing patterns: 1) really, really bad stuff that has been there for decades is still there, weighing everything down, for "backwards compatibility", and 2) a lot of horrible fluff and nonsense everywhere.

#1 is pretty self-explanatory, as I am editing docs in Word I am finding my muscle memory circa 1999 or so still works with it due to all of the formatting bugs that still exist.

#2 I saw with Windows 11 and the crazy adverts everywhere, seemingly random UI choices, half-broken or implemented tools and applications, and now random UI buttons thrown everywhere.

The 1-2 punch is devastating and makes using Microsoft products 10x more depressing than it was 10-15 years ago, and it wasn't a happy fest then either for me.

So to me, AI is just "more of the same" with Microsoft. It is more random shit thrown on the wall to see what will stick.

Backwards compatibility has always been a Microsoft staple. What used to be a huge selling point - depending on the audience - is now clearly a crutch. Right now, it seems that the tech debt has finally started making the whole stack lean like the Tower of Pisa.

If they are not actually trading, they are almost certainly getting a lot wrong and I would not trust this one bit.

This article resonates strongly. I am consulting right now to a group that has enormous struggles technically, but they are all self-inflicted wounds that come down to people and process.

Management claims to want to understand and fix the problem, and their "fixes" reveal the real problems. Fix 1 - schedule a lot of group meetings for twice a week. After week 1, management drops off and fails to show up anymore for most of them. The meetings go off track. The answer? More meetings!

We now have that meeting daily. And have even less attendance.

Fix 2 - we don't know what people are doing, let's create dashboards. A slapdash, highly incorrect and problematic dashboard is created. It doesn't matter, because none of the managers ever checks the dashboard. The big boss hears we are still behind, and commandeers a random product person to be his admin assistant and has her maintain several spreadsheets in semi-secret tracking everyone's progress.

This semi-secret spreadsheet becomes non-secret and people find a million and one problems with it (not surprising as the commandeered admin assistant nee product person was pulling the data from all sorts of random areas with little direction with little coordination with others). We then have the spreadsheet war of various managers having their own spreadsheets.

Fix 3 - we are going to have The Source of Truth for product intake and ongoing development, with a number of characteristics (and these are generally not terrible characteristics). These are handed off to a couple of junior people with no experience to implemented with zero feedback. The net result is we still don't have a Source of Truth, but more of an xkcd situation that now we have 4 or 5 sources of truth strung together with scripts, duct tape, bandaids and prayer.

This continues on and on over years. Ideas are put forth, some good, some bad, some indifferent, but none of them matter because the leaders lack the ability to followup or demonstrate even basic understanding of what our group actually does.

It is truly soul crushing, but in this jobs environment, what are you going to do?

I worked somewhere with a similarly dysfunctional culture.

Peak absurdity, yet you and I have both seen it happen first hand. I wonder how common it is, because it's as ugly as it is mystifying.

When management isn't properly engaged, they need to delegate to someone who is. If neither things happen, it's just chaos and angry, ignorant apes making a lot of noise.

> in this jobs environment, what are you going to do?

I am currently unemployed with a rapidly shrinking cushion, and I'm honestly on the fence as to whether putting up with the above would be better. If there is no hope for improvement, all you're doing is exchanging your mental health for a few more beans.

Agree. Those parameters are incredibly artificial bullshit.