Readit NewsSaying this as someone doing Web related development since 1998, glory days of Perl and CGIs.
Next.js is 8 years old and still under-documented, and you will still get lost if you veer off the beaten path - of which sometimes there is none.
Frankly, I was mad at myself for not recognizing the hubris and their ignorance of web dev history when I noticed that they brought back directory based path convention from the 90s. That should’ve been the red flag that stopped me but I fell for Vercel’s fonts and web design.
Investing in an implicit and inflexible routing pattern such directory based routing that was used when we didn’t have nice things is like being a rich hippie. Oh it doesn’t stop there. Isn’t it cool that you get to (jk, you HAVE TO) name your files like ‘[path-that-takes-arg].tsx’? You may think that I used brackets as a placeholder signifier, but I didn’t! Brackets are part of the filename and they indicate that this route takes params.
Look, we all tried and maybe had a little too much fun inventing and sometimes reinventing clever patterns we shouldn’t have, but few of us doubled down and just ran with it for so long.
Luckily, you can get around the pattern above pretty easily by just using the one route as a router file and adding your own indirection. Obviously you miss out a bit on tree-shaking and probably some other optimizations they designed to rely on their implicit conventions but your codebase remains greppable.
That’s obviously possible snd common.
What I meant was actually butchering the monolith into separate pieces and deploying it, which is - by the definition of monolith - impossible.
There is no limit or cost to deploying 10000 lines over 1000 lines.
You can abuse git for it if you really want to cut corners.
But the engineers could find new jobs thanks to their acquired k8s experience.
* Centralized logging, log search, log based alerting
* Secrets manager
* Managed kubernetes
* Object store
* Managed load balancers
* Database HA
* Cache solutions
... Can I run all these by myself? Sure. But I'm not in this business. I just want to write software and run that.
And yes, I have needed most of this from day 1 for my startup.
For a personal toy project, or when you reach a certain scale, it may makes sense to go the other way. U
You must be doing truly a lot of growth prior to building. Or perhaps insisting on tiny VMs for your loads?
I loved the agency, but they could be brutal. I used to watch Japanese managers bring subordinates to tears.
They were gentler to me, but not that much gentler. I had the "privilege" of being in the "inner circle" of trust.
I suppose there has to be a sacrifice.
If I showed that I could deliver, they would basically give me a “blank check,” for support, but I was expected to take this high level of trust seriously, and not abuse it. They wouldn’t second-guess my decisions.
They would assume that I knew what I was doing; which could be pretty scary, but I was also expected to ask for help, if I found myself over my head. They might be grumpy, but they’d give me the help. I did risk having the responsibility yanked, though.
Copping to my mistakes was expected. I was also expected to do so, in spite of possible dire consequences. If they found out about it after the fact, or if I tried to cover it up, things would go badly.
Throwing co-workers or employees under the bus was very bad. It pretty much destroyed your rep. Weasels did not do well.
High expectations, high trust, big support, a ton of agency, and really high standards on deliverables and transparency.
From what I read here, a lot of folks would have difficulty in that environment. I liked it, but it could be stressful.
> High expectations, high trust, big support, a ton of agency, and really high standards on deliverables and transparency.
This sounds like a utopia to me to be honest. I am not sure if I agree with your assessment about how many here would not be able to handle it. My concern is many here won’t be able to offer it. I would love this type of management.
I always made that clear to my employees, but after that, my employees' interests generally came second (over my own).
It seemed to work. I was a manager at the same company for over 25 years, and my bosses were really tough (but fair).
If you’re fair, what function does being tough serve? Or does being fair allow tolerating the shortcoming that’s being tough?
An employee being tough - resilient, emotionally strong - sounds like a good idea. But manager being tough to reports? I fail to see the function/value.
You can’t expect a person living in country X to validate the documents from Y country. It’s quite unreasonable to expect that they will even understand the language the document is in.
If the claim is the VISA issuing officer already doesn’t verify anything and therefore familiarity with the language and system of country Y isn’t necessary, that’s a different discussion.
The thing to fix here is requiring that someone already in US has to go to a consulate to renew/change their VISA. For someone who went to college in US for 4 years, and then did OPT for ~2 years, it’s meaningless for them to go to their home country to apply for an H1B, because all the documents they will bring will be from the US and the home country consulate personnel may not even be fit to check the validity of those documents.