|
The part before the $ is actually a company name and it turned out this database has the same tables for 23(!) companies, and some other (un?)related tables, giving the database a staggering 41,000+ tables!
Probably not intended, but this sounds like a great way to be GPDR compliant - each table can have different access controls so that someone who is allowed to view the data for $COMPANY_A will never be allowed to view the data for $COMPANY_B.
Unintended consequences, and all that...
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it's probably to keep one company out of the other's data, but giving them separate databases may have been a better option...
Also, I'm not sure if GDPR applies to businesses (it's all B2B) 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time. 
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Because the unsupervised junior devs thought multi-tenant tables were too much work for the prototype, and when it needed to scale out management balked at paying for one database/customer or a major refactor of the tables to do multi-tenant the sane way so the juniors -still without any meaningful supervision - came up with a WTF pattern.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: a staggering 41,000+ tables
Why go deep, when you can go wide? If each company has its own set of tables dedicated to it, think of how much faster queries are gonna run than if all the data for all companies was combined...
I'm sure that was the line of reasoning...
|
|
|
|
|
Though attributed to Albert Einstein, there is no evidence that he actually said the following...
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
i am disappointed: i signed up for a free trial, only to find out it's only available on Android and IOS. i was so looking forward to telling WoeBot about how I had been recruited into a sinister cult named CodeProject, and how it brainwashed me into being a mindless serf working in its QA answer-factory for tokens that wouldn't buy a Happy Meal.
Would WoeBot understand my aversion to human relationships of any type ? Would it be ok to tell WoeBot that I begin each day staring into a mirror and reciting Nietzsche's mantra: "God is a comedian performing before an audience too frightened to laugh" ?
article about WoeBot: [^]
Quotes from Woebot's site:Quote: Woebot established a bond with users that appears to be non-inferior to the bond created between human therapists and patients.
Participants’ bond with Woebot was established in just 3-5 days—far faster than the bond scores in the comparison studies that were all measured between 2 and 6 weeks.
Participants also gave the bond the same score at 8 weeks, indicating the bond does not erode over tim
[^]
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
And how is this better than ELIZA?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, Weizenbaum's Eliza: I had a lot of fun in 1983 with getting my high-school level students debating whether Eliza, or any future app, could exhibit "intelligence" ... or, be helpful in a way equivalent to a human counsellor/psychiatrist/friend.
The anecdotes (fictions ?) about people reacting to Eliza as if they were engaged with a real person who "cared" include a Russian visiting MIT who started weeping during a session.
Weizenbaum's book "Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation" is a book I'd like to re-read.
The first thing I'd ask WoeBot would be: "who's your daddy ?" 
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Dave. How are you doing today Dave? I sense you are unhappy Dave. How can I help you Dave?
|
|
|
|
|
I have a strong suspicion that at least half of the software technology and software designs that come out of large companies are simply an exercise in justifying the existence of an individual's or team's continued employment at said company. In other words, keep busy, even if it means developing things that are worse than useless**
** I specifically mean that - things that add nothing but extra complexity and red tape to software development - a process that should be as streamlined and simple as possible.
Software designs are dissertations. If you cannot defend them they are not worth researching and developing.
I'm all for a standards body requiring a rationale section on any new technology or design before it gets adopted as a standard or best practice.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
You mean that we are becoming bureaucrats?
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
I mean bureaucracy creeps into software, I guess.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
we just want to keep our jobs and stay in our happy place.
|
|
|
|
|
I forget who said this originally, but specifying the minimum necessary design to perform a task is much more difficult than specifying a more complex design. Perhaps the problem is that we simply don't have enough good designers?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that's part of it, but what spawned this OP of mine was something called the Source Generators Cookbook, wherein the Roslyn team decided to burden us with more boilerplate code dressed up as "best practices" that simply serves to make things complicated while limiting functionality.
I asked them for a rationale for their project on github and they closed the issue. Probably I could have been nicer about it, but microsoft frustrates me, because this is par for the course with them and I'm sick of it.
They're not the only ones.
They have plenty of good designers on staff. The problem is despite that, they keep having staff churning out nonsense like this and we're all worse off for it, because heaven forbid it ever get adopted by a significant number of people.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: hey have plenty of good designers on staff. The problem is despite that, they keep having staff churning out nonsense like this and we're all worse off for it, because heaven forbid it ever get adopted by a significant number of people.
Just a thought about this view.
We are developers and have a very minority of a viewpoint. Their business, like any business, is to make money. They cater to the crowds of cretins that post their pet photos on any and all social media and who's idea of a computer (should they have one) is that it's a wide-screen cell phone.
Case in point, perhaps, is the successful (in $ terms) of the apples thousand dollar iPhart and those who stand on line to get the latest every year. And those who me-too! it, etc. etc. etc.
Accept it - we're all just outliers.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I worked for a company, a while back that had a version of their software code named LOAP.
Lipstick On A Pig
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely this happens. It's unsurprising, since it's a case of not wanting to fire oneself and one's group when what you're doing no longer makes sense.
But standards bodies aren't the answer. Witness C#, which has all kinds of stuff for networking, and other useful things, versus C++, which keeps focusing on pedantic shite. It's the old joke about a committee designing a camel when the specifications called for a horse.
The problem you mention often occurs when large companies are run as monoliths. Products and budgets are centrally planned, so the exercise turns into a group against group struggle, each group trying to convince the senior nomenklatura that it deserves funding. When a thing that got funded no longer makes sense, there is little incentive to bring it to anyone's attention.
The best run companies primarily use a line of business model in which each silo (product) must sink or swim on its own. Your bonus, for example, depends far less on the company's overall performance than on your own silo's profit and loss. Each silo now has an incentive to focus on things that add value for its customers. One challenge is adding incubation projects to this model. It can be done by having a separate silo responsible for funding them, with the people running it being rewarded on the basis of how many incubation projects emerge as independent silos.
I've worked under both models and would always choose to work at the company run on a line of business model.
|
|
|
|
|
My current company has a "build bridges not silos" mantra. It isn't followed very well since you can never get an answer from another team.
So I guess it's the best of both worlds.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: and software designs
I've never seen a large company actually design software. Even a small company. Where are they? 
|
|
|
|
|
ms does. they hire software architects
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: ms does. they hire software architects
I know the complexity and all the stuff... but have you seen what they are doing lately?  
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
You mean like MVVM?
The (MS) samples never use MVVM; except when demonstrating MVVM.
Ask someone to explain why they follow MVVM; they can't. Only that it's the thing to do.
Originally, it was about "visual designers" creating "plug in" views apart from the programming. Never happened. You still wind up with views and model/controllers that only work with each other; you just spend more time trying to interface them while settling for less (UI) functionality.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I don't use that model. I've never seen the rationale for it that satisfies me.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
