The problem is most likely not writing the actual code, but rather understanding an old, fairly large codebase and how it’s stitched together.
SO is (was?) great when you where thinking about how nice a recursive reduce function could replace the mess you’ve just cobbled together, but language x just didn’t yet flow naturally for you.
The argument is perhaps ”enshittification”, and that becoming reliant on a specific provider or even set of providers for ”important thing” will become problematic over time.
As go feels like a straight-jacket compared to many other popular languages, it’s probably very suitable for an LLM in general.
Thinking about it - was this not the idea of go from the start? Nothing fancy to keep non-rocket scientist away from foot-guns, and have everyone produce code that everyone else can understand.
Diving in to a go project you almost always know what to expect, which is a great thing for a business.
Same here, but Azure. About 90% saved, with a very similar stack.
It is a great big cloud play to make enterprises reliant on the competency in their weird service abstractions, which is slowly draining the quite simple ops story an enterprise usually needs.
Although we’re using temporal to schedule the workflows, we have a full-code typescript CI/CD setup.
We’ve been through them all starting with Jenkins ending with drone, until we realized that full-code makes it so much easier to maintain and share the work over the whole dev org.
No more yaml, code generating yaml, product quirk, groovy or DSLs!
Of all the paas providers Azure have the worst abstractions and services.
In general I think it’s sad that most buy in to consuming these ”weird” services and that there’s jobs to be had as cloud architects and specialists.
It feeds bad design and loose threads as partners have to be kept relevant.
This is my take on the whole enterprise IT field though!
At my little shop of 30 so developers, we inherited an Azure mess, built abstractions for the services we need in a more ”industry standard” way in our dev tooling, and moved to Hetzner after a couple of years.
A developer here knows no different, basically - our tooling deals with our workflows and service abstractions, and these shouldn’t change just because new provider.
1/10-th of the monthly bill, and money partly spent on building the best DX one can imagine.
Great trade-off, IMO!
Only two cases come to mind for using big cloud:
- really small scale: mvp style
- massive global distribution with elasticity requirements.
Two outliers looking at the vast majority of companies out there.
Writing the code is NOT the problem with these enterprise project failures.
Usually decades of problem-solving have led to an absolute mess of blurry ownership and accountability.
This in turn leads to corner cutting and a road completely covered in Chesterton fences…
Tearing arbitrary fence down leads to consequences out of project scope, no one can answer questions, and no one can prioritize - this is a business problem, and no amount of fancy code (lo/hi/full/lo/left or right) will help.
If you run a bigger company and rely on IT and ERP flows, well, it’s a part of your core and you’d better treat it as such!
CRUD applications are not what most enterprises build though - they need interconnected flows of data & state-machines often supporting rather complex workflows and integration patterns.
Not realizing this is a mistake many enterprise IT shops make.
The boring crud-thingie that someone hacks together will sooner rather than later have to be integrated in a distributed system of state - this is where it gets hairy and most enterprises get stuck.
The kia I drive still roll at a couple of km/h when accelerator is fully released and will not hit 0 unless you use a paddle by the steering wheel (or use the breaks).
SO is (was?) great when you where thinking about how nice a recursive reduce function could replace the mess you’ve just cobbled together, but language x just didn’t yet flow naturally for you.