dangets

Yes, that is how terminology evolves to not meet a rigid definition that was defined in a different era of best-practice coding beliefs. I'll admit I had trouble mapping the DDD OO concepts from the original book(s) to systems I work on now, but there are more recent resources that use the spirit of DDD, Domain Separation, and Domain Modeling outside of OO contexts. You're right in that there is no single recipe - take the good ideas and practices from DDD and apply it as appropriate.

And if the response is "that's not DDD", well you're fighting uphill against others that have co-opted the buzzword as well.

- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/architecture/micros... - https://www.infoq.com/news/2013/06/actor-model-ddd/

Comment · 1 year ago

You can remove JSON fields at the cost of breaking your clients at runtime that expect those fields. Of course the same can happen with any deserialization libraries, but protobufs at least make it more explicit - and you may also be more easily able to track down consumers using older versions.

Comment · 1 year ago

The request / data fetching is interesting in how "easy" it is to write. I did basic perusal of the examples, but I'd be interested to see what it looks like with rate-limited endpoints and concurrent requests.

Another tangentially related project is https://steampipe.io/ though it is for exposing APIs via Postgres tables and the clients are written using Go code and shared through a marketplace.

Comment · 1 year ago

I felt the same - have to relearn/lookup everything every time I went back to a project or wanted to do some operations that are simple to describe in SQL but I couldn't wrap my mind around e.g. using multi-indexed dataframes & aggregations properly. These days, I always jump to Polars instead of Pandas - much more intuitive and consistent API. Tons of props to Pandas for all that they did (and continue to do) in the data space, but their API did not evolve very well IMO.

I've also been wanting to play with Ibis[1] recently, but Polars has been sufficient for me.

[1] https://ibis-project.org/

Comment · 1 year ago

I do the same, though my muscle memory is `1=1` instead of `true`.

Of course then you get editors/linters/coworkers that always point out that the 'true' is unnecessary. This also doesn't work with ORs (just swap to false), but in practice it seems it is always ANDs that is being used.

Comment · 1 year ago

Sharding, pre-allocating leases of blocks of tickets across available resources, and eventual consistency. You don't need to keep the UX transactionally correct; you are able to say "0 tickets remaining" and then a minute or hour or day later say "100 tickets remaining". For something as popular as Taylor Swift, the fans will keep checking.