Skip to main content

All about Catalyst – interview of Matt S. Trout (Part 2 of 3)

Does all that flexibility come at a price?

The key price is that while there are common ways to do things, you’re rarely going to find One True Way to solve any given problem. It’s more likely to be “here’s half a dozen perfectly reasonable ways, which one is best probably depends on what the rest of your code looks like”, plus while there’s generally not much integration specific code involved, everything else is a little more DIY than most frameworks seem to require.
I can put together a catalyst app that does something at least vaguely interesting in a couple hours, but doing the sort of 5 minute wow moment thing that intro screencasts and marketing copy seem to aim for just doesn’t happen, and often when people first approach catalyst they tend to get a bit overwhelmed by the various features and the way you can put them together.

There’s a reflex of “this is too much, I don’t need this!”. But then a fair percentage of them come back two or three years later, have another look and go “ah, I see why I want all these features now: I’d've written half as much code since I thought I didn’t need all Catalyst features”. Similarly the wow moment is usually three months or six months into a project, when you realise that adding features is still going quickly because the code’s naturally shaken out into a sensible structure

So, there’s quite a bit of learning, and it’s pretty easy for it to look like overkill if you haven’t already experienced the pain involved. It’s a lot like the use strict problem writ large – declaring variables with my inappropriate scopes rather than making it up as you go along is more thinking and more effort to begin with, so it’s not always easy to get across that it’s worth it until the prospective user has had blue daemons fly out of his nose a couple of times from mistakes a more structured approach would’ve avoided.

Full interview on Josettorama

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Serverless JavaScript

We recently joined in an interesting two-hour long conversation about Serverless JavaScript led by Steve Faulkner of Bustle who answered questions on Bustle, the Shep framework, the mindset behind the AWS Lambda infrastructure, and related topics.

The discussion took place on the Sideway conversation-sharing platform on January 6th. Here we present the best takeaways from the session which really should be taken notice of by anyone working on AWS.

Steve Faulkner:
At Bustle we serve over 50 million unique readers per month through a "serverless" architecture based on AWS Lambda and Node.js.  Of course there are still servers but we don't manage them. This shift has allowed us to develop products faster and decreased the cost of our infrastructure. I'll answer any questions about how we made this transition and how it has worked out. I'll also discuss some of the tools and best practises including our open source framework shep

Eran Hammer:
When would you…

First Hybrid Open-Source RDBMS Powered By Hadoop and Spark

Splice Machine is a novel attempt to merge the best parts of the traditional relational database management systems and their NoSQL counterparts with distributed and in-memory computing based on Hadoop and Spark.

Traditional RDBMS find it tough when faced with massive amounts of data, which they typically handle by scaling up, albeit expensively. Another side effect of the sheer volume of data accumulating from the likes of social media and mobile devices, is that OLTP and OLAP queries carry high performance hits that subsequently have detrimental effects on real time analysis and instant decision making.

full article on i-programmer

Google's Cloud Spanner To Settle the Relational vs NoSQL Debate?

Cloud Spanner is a new proposition for database as a service that emphatically offers "Relational with NoSQL scaling". Will Google come to dominate yet another market?

Once upon a time there was only one kind of database management system, the RDBMS, "R" for relational. Despite its resilience and trustworthiness, it had its shortcomings; it did not scale well, and the relational model it served proved inadequate in the dawn of the Big Data era for handling massive amounts of schema-less, unstructured data.
For this and a few other reasons, a new breed of DBMS's emerged, one that could handle the avalanche of big data, based on the notion of the key-value pair, and doing so by scaling horizontally. But, in order to become versatile, this new breed of management systems had to forgo the safety of the ACID and the cosiness of SQL, both long term partners of the relational model. full article on i-programmer