(no affiliation, I enjoy the original and wish for it to reach as many people as possible)
Also like a lot of programming advice it isn't actually that useful. Advice like "avoid complexity" sounds like it is good advice, but it isn't good advice. Of course you should avoid complexity. Telling people to do that is about as useful as telling people to "be more confident".
We mostly learn to avoid complexity through trial and error - working on complex and simple systems, seeing the pitfalls, specific techniques to avoid complexity, what specific complexity is bad, etc. Because not all complexity is bad. You want simplicity? Better trade in you Zen 4 and buy a Cortex M0. And I hope you aren't running a modern OS on it.
Ok "avoid unnecessary complexity"? Great how exactly do you know what's unnecessary? Years of experience that's how. Nothing you can distill to a gimmicky essay.
"Bad"
lol
https://craftinginterpreters.com/representing-code.html#the-...
I remember reading through it and not understanding why it had to be this complicated and then just used a tagged union instead.
Maybe I'm too stupid for OO. But I think that's kind of the point of the grug article as well. Why burden ourselves with indirection and complexity when there's a more straight forward way?
https://prog2.de/book/sec-java-expr-problem.html - Not the writeup I was looking for but seems to cover it well.
> Why burden ourselves with indirection and complexity when there's a more straight forward way?
Because each way has its own tradeoffs that make it more or less difficult to use in particular circumstances.
https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/expression/expr... - Wadler's description of the expression problem.
However, this is just not something that I typically perceive as a problem. For example in the book that I mentioned above, I didn't feel the need to use it at all. I just added the fields or the functions that were required.
In the first link you provided, the OCaml code seems to use unions as well (I don't know the language). I assume OCaml checks for exhaustive matching, so it seems extremely straight forward to extend this code.
On the other hand I have absolutely no issues with a big switch case in a more simple language. I just had a look at the code I wrote quite a while ago and it looks fine.
https://grugbrain.dev/#grug-on-parsing
but the visitor pattern is nearly always a bad idea IMO: you should just encode the operation in the tree if you control it or create a recursive function that manually dispatches on the argument type if you don't
In languages influenced by ML (like contemporary Java!) it is common in compiler work in that you might have an AST or similar kind of structure and you end up writing a lot of functions that use pattern matching like
switch(node) {
type1(a,b) -> whatever(a,b)
type2(c) -> process(c)
}
Java doesn't support this though I thought?
Given the syntax tree example from Wikipedia, I think I'd call it AstWalker, AstItem::dispatch(AstWalker) and AstWalker::process(AstItem) instead of Visitor, AstItem::accept(AstVisitor) and AstVisitor::visit(AstItem).
"The walker walks the AST, each items sends it to the next ones, and the walker processes them". That means something. "The visitor visits the AST items, which accept it" means basically nothing. It's more general, but also contains very little useful information. So the visitor might need different names in different situations. Fine. Just add a comment "visitor pattern" for recognizability.
I remember a situation where I needed to walk two object trees for a data comparison and import operation. I created an AbstractImporter that walked the two trees in lockstep in a guaranteed order and invoked virtual methods for each difference. It had a non-virtual doImport() for the ordered data walk, and doImport() called virtual methods like importUserAccount(), importUserAccountGrouMemberships() etc. There were two subclasses of AbstractImporter: ImportAnalyzer collected differences to display them, then there was a selection step implemented by a kind of list model + a bit of controller logic, then an ImportWorker to make the selected changes. All rather specific terminology and not exactly the visitor pattern.
grug wonder why big brain take hardest problem, factoring system correctly, and introduce network call too
Now I understand that “architecture” and “patterns” is a jobs program for useless developers. It’s this, or they’d be on the streets holding a sign saying “will write JavaScript for a sandwich”.
Yet, developers are always using patterns and are thinking about architecture.
Here you are doing so too, a pattern, "form submission" and an architecture, "request-response".
I'm curious what role you have where you're doing this repeatedly
The agencies are similarly uncoordinated and will pick up their metaphorical credit card and just throw it at random small dev teams, internally, external, or a mix.
Those people will happily take the credit! The money just… disappears. It’s like a magic trick, or one of those street urchins that rips you off when you’re on holiday in some backwards part of the world like Paris.
I get brought in as “the cloud consultant” for a week or two at the end to deploy the latest ball of mud with live wires sticking out of it to production.
This invariably becomes an argument because the ball of mud the street urchins have sold to the customer is not fit for… anything… certainly not for handling PII or money, but they spent the budget and the status reports were all green ticks for years.
Fundamentally, the issue is that they're "going into the cloud" with platform as a service, IaC, and everything, but at some level they don't fully grok what that means and the type of oversight required to make that work at a reasonable cost.
"But the nice sales person from Microsoft assured me the cloud is cheaper!"
In fact we're going through one of these SAP HANA migrations at present and it's very broken, because the prime contractor has delivered a big ball of mud with lots of internal microservices.
One app I got brought in late on the architect had done some complicated mediator pattern for saving data with a micro service architecture. They'd also semi-implemented DDD.
It was a ten page form. Literally that was what it was supposed to replace. An existing paper, 10 page, form. One of those "domains" was a list of the 1,000 schools in the country. That needed to be updated once a year.
A government spent millions on this thing.
I could have done it on my todd in 3 months. It just needed to use simple forms, with some simple client side logic for hiding sections, and save the data with an ORM.
The funniest bit was when I said that it couldn't handle the load because the architecture had obvious bottlenecks. The load was known and fairly trivial (100k form submissions in one month).
The architect claimed that it wasn't possible as the architecture was all checked and approved by one of the big 5.
So I brought the test server down during the call by making 10 requests at once.
Back in the very early 2000s I got sent to "tune IIS performance" at a 100-developer ISV working on a huge government project.
They showed me that pressing the form submit button on just two PCs at once had "bad performance".
No, not it didn't. One was fast[1], the other took 60 seconds almost exactly. "That's a timeout on a lock or something similar", I told them.
They then showed me their 16-socket database server that must have cost them millions and with a straight face asked me if I thought that they needed to upgrade it to get more capacity. Upgrade to what!? That was the biggest machine I have ever seen! I've never in the quarter century since then seen anything that size with my own two eyes. I don't believe bigger Wintel boxes have ever been made.
I then asked their database developers how they're doing transactions and whether they're using stored procedures or not.
One "senior" database developer asked me what a stored procedure is.
The other "senior" database developer asked me what a transaction is.
"Oh boy..."
[1] Well no, not really, it took about a second, which was long enough for a human button press to to "overlap" the two transactions in time. That was a whole other horror story of ODBC connection pooling left off and one-second sleeps in loops to "fix" concurrency issues.
This is the real, actual conversation to be had about "AI taking jobs."
I've seen similar things a lot in the private sector.
There's just loads of people just flailing around doing stuff without really having any expertise other than some vague proxy of years of experience.
It's really not even exactly their fault (people have lives that don't revolve around messing about with software systems design, sure, and there's no good exposure to anything outside of these messes in their workplaces).
But, outside of major software firms (think banks, and other non-"tech" F500s; speaking from experience here) there's loads of people that are "Enterprise Architects" or something that basically spend 5 hours a day in meetings and write 11 lines of C# or something a quarter and then just adopt ideas they heard from someone else a few years back.
Software is really an utterly bizarre field where there's really nothing that even acts as valuable credentials or experience without complete understanding of what that "experience" is actually comprised of. I think about this a lot.
My grug brain conclusion: Grug see good microservice in many valley. Grug see grug tribe carry good microservice home and roast on spit. Grug taste good microservice, many time. Shaman tell of good monolith in vision. Grug also dream of good monolith. Maybe grug taste good monolith after die. Grug go hunt good microservice now.
But you are right that the remote procedure call is a fraught concept for more reasons than one. On one hand there is the fundamental difference between a local procedure call that takes a few ns and a remote call which might take 1,000,000 longer. There's also the fact that most RPC mechanisms that call themselves RPC mechanisms are terribly complicated, like DCOM or the old Sun RPC. In some sense RPC became mainstream once people started pretending it was REST. People say it is not RPC but often you have a function in your front end Javascript like fetch_data(75) and that becomes GET /data/75 and your back end JAXB looks like
@GET
@Path("/{id}")
public List<Data> fetchData(@PathParam("id") int id) { ... }I think this is correct as an explanation for the phenomenon, but it's not just a false perception on their part: for a lot of organizations it is actually true that the only way to preserve boundaries between systems over the course of years is to stick the network in between. Without a network layer enforcing module boundaries code does, in fact, tend to morph into a big ball of mud.
I blame a few things for this:
1. Developers almost universally lack discipline.
2. Most programming languages are not designed to sufficiently account for #1.
It's not a coincidence that microservices became popular shortly after Node.js and Python became the dominant web backend languages. A strong static type system is generally necessary (but not sufficient) to create clear boundaries between modules, and both Python and JavaScript have historically been even worse than usual for dynamic languages when it comes to having a strong modularity story.
And while Python and JS have it worse than most, even most of our popular static languages are pretty lousy at giving developers the tools needed to clearly delineate module boundaries. Rust has a pretty decent starting point but it too could stand to be improved.
Many companies don't seem to do a good job coordinating between teams. Different teams have different incentives and priorities. If group A needs fixes/work from group B and B has been given some other priority, group A is stuck.
By putting a network between modules different groups can limit blast damage from other teams' modules and more clearly show ownership when things go wrong. If group A's project fails because of B's module it still looks like A's code has the problem.
Upper management rarely cares about nuance. They want to assign blame, especially if it's in another team or department. So teams under them always want clear boundaries of responsibility so they don't get thrown under the bus.
The root cause of a lot of software problems is the organization that produces it more than any individual or even team working on it.
- Cannot be run without an orchestrator like K8S, which is a bear to install and maintain, which helps sell managed cloud.
- Uses more network bandwidth, which they bill for, and CPU, which they bill for.
- Makes it hard to share and maintain complex or large state within the application, encouraging the use of more managed database and event queue services as a substitute, which they bill for. (Example: a monolith can use a queue or a channel, while for microservices you’re going to want Kafka or some other beast.)
- Can’t be run locally easily, meaning you need dev environments in cloud, which means more cloud costs. You might even need multiple dev and test environments. That’s even more cloud cost.
- Tends to become dependent on the peculiarities of a given cloud host, such as how they do networking, increasing cloud lock in.
Anyone else remember how cloud was pitched as saving money on IT? That was hilarious. Knew it was BS way back in the 2000s and that it would eventually end up making everything cost more.
Don't forget various pipelines, IaC, pipelines for deploying IaC, test/dev/staging/whatever environments, organization permissions strategies etc etc...
When I worked at a large, uh, cloud company as a consultant, solutions were often tailored towards "best practices"--this meant, in reality, large complex serverless/containerized things with all sorts of integrations for monitoring, logging, NoSQL, queues etc, often for dinky little things that an RPI running RoR or NodeJS could serve without breaking a sweat.
With rare exceptions, we'd never be able to say, deploy a simple go server on a VM with server-side rendered templates behind a load balancer with some auto-scaling and a managed database. Far too pedestrian.
Sure, it's "best practices" for "high-availability" but was almost always overkill and a nightmare to troubleshoot.
I've seen your work in Hotwire in my role as a Staff Ruby on Rails Engineer. It's the coolest thing to see you pop up in Hacker News every now and then and also see you talking with the Hotwire devs in GitHub.
Thanks for being a light in the programming community. You're greatly respected and appreciated.
get the mug!
It's very effective, simple and expressive to work this way, as long as you keep in mind that some client side rendering is fine.
There are a few bits I don't like about it, like defaulting to swap innerHTML instead of outerHTML, not swapping HTML when the status code isn't 200-299 by default and it has some features that I avoid, like inline JSON on buttons instead of just using forms.
Other than that, it's great. I can also recommend reading the book https://hypermedia.systems/.
I think about this line at least once a week
this grug keeps one on one invisible t-rex, grug cursed
Tyrannosaurs were built for speed. Their leg bones were hollow, like a bird’s. If he could break a femur …
The shovel connected, but not solidly. It hit without breaking anything. But, still, it got tangled up in those powerful legs. With enormous force, it was wrenched out of his hands. Leyster was sent tumbling on the ground.
Somebody was screaming. Dazed, Leyster raised himself up on his arms to see Patrick, hysterically slamming the juvenile, over and over, with the butt of the shotgun. He didn’t seem to be having much effect. Scarface was clumsily trying to struggle to its feet. It seemed not so much angry as bewildered by what was happening to it.
Then, out of nowhere, Tamara was standing in front of the monster. She looked like a warrior goddess, all rage and purpose. Her spear was raised up high above Scarface, gripped tightly in both hands. Her knuckles were white.
With all her strength, she drove the spear down through the center of the tyrannosaur’s face. It spasmed, and died. Suddenly everything was very still."
many, many shiney rock lost to agile shaman!
I smell a formal grammar behind dumbiffied grug english.
nonetheless, I think that when it says:
> so grug say again and say often: complexity very, very bad
at the end of that section, it shoulud say instead:
> so grug say again and say often: complexity very, very, very bad
this disambiguates 3 instances of same concept/idea AND, even better, showcases 3 values of increasing strength like for warning, error, critical use. most compact.
end of groog
But it should be fairly quick, expect an updated version around end of summer or just after.
grug make other work grugs read this after yellow circle arrive next
grug thank clever grug
sad but true: learn "yes" then learn blame other grugs when fail, ideal career advice
Fun fact about Google: logging is like 95% of the job, easily... From tracking everything every service is doing all the time to wrangling the incoming raw crawl data, it's all going through some kind of logging infrastructure.
I was there when they actually ran themselves out of integers; one of their core pieces of logging infrastructure used a protocol buffer to track datatypes of logged information. Since each field in a protocol buffer message is tagged with an integer key, they hit the problem when their top-level message bumped up against the (if memory serves) int16 implementation limit on maximum tag ID and had to scramble to fix it.
Grug user find program that does that and more.
Grug user confused by menu.
Grug user wish tool only did keyword research.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1emldq9MovfYshOSkM9rhRUcl...
not as good as the original, i know!
The Grug Brained Developer (2022) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38076886 - Oct 2023 (192 comments)
The Grug Brained Developer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31840331 - June 2022 (374 comments)
There is of course a time and place for sophistication, pushing for higher levels of abstraction and so on. But this grug philosophy is saying that there isn't any inherent value in doing this sort of thing and I think that is very sound advice.
Also I noticed AI assistance is more effective with consistent, mundane and data driven code. YMMV
and clojure.
mmmmm.
https://www.lulu.com/shop/carson-gross/the-grug-brained-deve...
it's the same content + an index, so not worth buying unless you want the hard copy, but maybe a good convo-starter for the ol'dev team
Three examples:
DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) sometimes leads to premature abstraction. We think, "hey, I bet this pattern will get used elsewhere, so we need to abstract out the common parts of the pattern and then..." And that's when the Complexity Demon enters.
We want as many bugs as possible caught at compile-time. But that means the compiler needs to know more and more about what we're actually trying to do, so we come up with increasingly complex types which tax your ability to understand.
To avoid boilerplate we create complex macros or entire DSLs to reduce typing. Unfortunately, the Law of Leaky Abstractions means that when we actually need to know the underlying implementation, our head explodes.
Our challenge is that each of these examples is sometimes a good idea. But not always. Being able to decide when to introduce complexity to simplify things is, IMHO, the mark of a good software engineer.
To modulate DRY, I try to emphasize the “rule of three”: up to three duplicates of some copy/paste code is fine, and after that we should think about abstracting.
Of course no rule of thumb applies in all cases, and the sense for that is hard to teach.
Usually I make web applications using Sinatra-like frameworks like Flask or JAXB where I write a function that answers URLs that match a pattern and a "screen" is one or more of those functions that work together and maybe some HTML templates that go with them. For instance there might be a URL for a web page that shows data about a user, and another URL that HTMX calls when you flip a <select> to change the status of that user.
Assuming the "application" has the stuff to configure the database connection and file locations and draw HTML headers and footers and such, there is otherwise little coupling between the screens so if you want to make a new screen you can cut and paste an old screen and modify it, or you can ask an LLM to make you a screen or endpoint and if it "vibe coded" you a bad screen you can just try again to make another screen. It can make sense to use inheritance or composition to make a screen that can be specialized, or to write screens that are standalone (other than fetching the db connection and such.)
The origin story was that I was working on a framework for making ML training sets called "Themis" that was using microservices, React, Docker and such. The real requirement was that we were (1) always adding new tasks, and (2) having to create simple but always optimized "screens" for those tasks because if you are making 20,000 judgements it is bad enough to click 20,000 times, if you have to click 4x for each one and it adds up to 80,000 you will probably give up. As it was written you had to write a bunch of API endpoints as part of a JAXB application and React components that were part of a monolithic React app and wait 20 minutes for typescript and Docker and javac to do their things and if you are lucky it boots up otherwise you have to start over.
I wrote up a criticism of Themis and designed "Nemesis" that was designed for rapid development of new tasks and it was a path not taken at the old job, but Nemesis and I have been chewing through millions of instances of tasks ever since.
This doesn't mean OP is bad advice, just make a conscious decision about what to do with complexity and understand the implications.
Grug brained dev I am I guess.
I’ve spent time at small startups and on “elite” big tech teams, and I’m usually the only one on my team using a debugger. Almost everyone in the real world (at least in web tech) seems to do print statement debugging. I have tried and failed to get others interested in using my workflow.
I generally agree that it’s the best way to start understanding a system. Breaking on an interesting line of code during a test run and studying the call stack that got me there is infinitely easier than trying to run the code forwards in my head.
Young grugs: learning this skill is a minor superpower. Take the time to get it working on your codebase, if you can.
My workflow is usually:
1. insert a breakpoint on some code that I’m trying to understand
2. attach the debugger and run any tests that I expect to exercise that code
3. walk up and down the call stack, stepping occasionally, reading the code and inspecting the local variables at each level to understand how the hell this thing works and why it’s gone horribly wrong this time.
4. use my new understanding to set new, more relevant breakpoints; repeat 2-4.
Sometimes I fiddle with local variables to force different states and see what happens, but I consider this advanced usage, and anyway it often doesn’t work too well on my current codebase.
I've often felt that I should, but never enough to actually learn how
> As personal choice, we tend not to use debuggers beyond getting a stack trace or the value of a variable or two. One reason is that it is easy to get lost in details of complicated data structures and control flow; we find stepping through a program less productive than thinking harder and adding output statements and self-checking code at critical places. Clicking over statements takes longer than scanning the output of judiciously-placed displays. It takes less time to decide where to put print statements than to single-step to the critical section of code, even assuming we know where that is. More important, debugging statements stay with the program; debugging sessions are transient.
I tend to agree with them on this. For almost all of the work that I do, this hypothesis-logs-exec loop gets me to the answer substantially faster. I'm not "trying to run the code forwards in my head". I already have a working model for the way that the code runs, I know what output I expect to see if the program is behaving according to that model, and I can usually quickly intuit what is actually happening based on the incorrect output from the prints.
[0] The unreasonable effectiveness of print debugging (349 points, 354 comments) April 2021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26925570
Hard to get wrong, tedious to type and a huge speed increase to visually scan the output.
Most of us aren't Brian Kernighan or Rob Pike.
I am very happy for people who are, but I am firmly at a grug level.
I didn't really get into debuggers until (1) I was firmly in Windows, where you expect the GUI to work and the LI to be busted, and (2) I'd been burned too many times by adding debugging printfs() that got checked into version control and caused trouble.
Since then I've had some adventures with CLI debuggers, such as using gdb to debug another gdb, using both jdb and gdb on the same process at the same time to debug a Java/C++ system, automating gdb, etc. But there is the thing, as you say, is that there is usually some investment required to get the debugger working for a particular system.
With a good IDE I think Junit + debugging gives an experience in Java similar to using the REPL in a language like Python in that you can write some code that is experimental and experiment it, but in this case the code doesn't just scroll out of the terminal but ultimately gets checked in as a unit test.
One of the first things I do in a codebase is get some working IDE/editor up where I can quickly run the program under a debugger, even if I'm not immediately troubleshooting something. It's never long before I need to use it.
I was baffled when I too encountered this. Even working collaboratively with people they'd have no concept of how to use a debugger.
"No, set a breakpoint there"
"yeah now step into the function and inspect the state of those variables"
"step over that"
: blank stares at each instance :
I only used debugger recently in C# and C, when I was learning and practicing them.
A point that may be pedantic: I don't add (and then remove) "print" statements. I add logging code, that stays forever. For a major interface, I'll usually start with INFO level debugging, to document function entry/exit, with param values. I add more detailed logging as I start to use the system and find out what needs extra scrutiny. This approach is very easy to get started with and maintain, and provides powerful insight into problems as they arise.
I also put a lot of work into formatting log statements. I once worked on a distributed system, and getting the prefix of each log statement exactly right was very useful -- node id, pid, timestamp, all of it fixed width. I could download logs from across the cluster, sort, and have a single file that interleaved actions from across the cluster.
I can always drop an entire state object into the log if I need it, but the only way for a debugger to approximate what a log can give me is for me to step through a bunch of break points and hold the time stream in my head.
The one place where a debugger is straight up better is if I know exactly which unit of code is failing and that unit has complicated logic that is worth stepping through line by line. That's what they were designed for, and they're very useful for that, but it's also not the most common kind of troubleshooting I run into.
PaulHoule•5h ago
Thinking you are too smart leads to all sorts of trouble, like using C++ and being proud of it.
If you think your intelligence is a limited resource however you'll conserve it and not waste it on tools, process and the wrong sort of design.
idlewords•4h ago
parpfish•4h ago
guywithahat•4h ago
Even if we decided to use Zig for everything, hiring for less popular languages like Zig, lua, or Rust is significantly harder. There are no developers with 20 years experience in Zig
juliangmp•4h ago
Any decent engineer must be able to work with other languages and tools. What you're looking for is someone with experience building systems in your area of expertise.
And even then, experience is often a poor substitute for competence.
hiimkeks•3h ago
You may in trivia quiz languages that have more features than anyone can learn in a lifetime
shadowgovt•3h ago
"We're going to need to fit parts of this into very constrained architectures."
"Right, so we need a language that compiles directly to machine code with no runtime interpretation."
"Which one should we use?"
"What about Rust?"
"I know zero Rust developers."
"What about C++?"
"I know twenty C++ developers and am confident we can hire three of them tomorrow."
The calculus at the corporate level really isn't more complicated than that. And the thing about twenty C++ developers is that they're very good at using the tools to stamp the undefined behavior out of the system because they've been doing it their entire careers.
kragen•3h ago
flkenosad•3h ago
Jtsummers•3h ago
kragen•2h ago
PaulHoule•2h ago
Sure C was a huge advance in portability but C and C++ represent a transitional form between an age where you could cleanly spec a special purpose language like COBOL or FORTRAN but not quite spec a general systems programming language and one in which you could. C++, thus, piles a huge amount of complexity on top of a foundation which is almost but not quite right.
frollogaston•1h ago
guywithahat•3h ago
WD-42•1h ago
frollogaston•1h ago
PaulHoule•39m ago
I think it's still little appreciated how revolutionary garbage collection is. You don't have maven or cargo for C because you can't really smack together arbitrary C libraries together unless the libraries have an impoverished API when it comes to memory management. In general if you care about performance you would want to pass a library a buffer from the application in some cases, or you might want to pass the library custom malloc and free functions. If your API is not impoverished the library can never really know if the application is done with the buffer and the application can't know if the library is done. But the garbage collector knows!
It is painful to see Rustifarians pushing bubbles around under the rug when the real message the borrow checker is trying to tell them is that their application has a garbage-collector shaped hole in it. "RC all the things" is an answer to reuse but if you are going to do that why not just "GC all the things?" There's nothing more painful than watching people struggle with async Rust because async is all about going off the stack and onto the heap and once you do that you go from a borrowing model that is simple and correct to one that is fraught and structurally unstable -- but people are so proud of their ability to fight complexity they can't see it.
devrandoom•3h ago
flkenosad•3h ago