You say don't use databases, and that we had the option to use something different and did not, and chose this path.
I ask you what to use instead, and how to deal with datastore versioning.
You say you're talking about how we don't have type safety that extends to the remote systems we're interacting with.
I ask how that helps versioning problems with these systems where you need to deal with applying changes across distributes systems, which specifically is not solved by having types in lockstep definition between systems, because in application of change there are problems to work thought.
You note we did all this deliberately and we didn't have to. I keep asking you what the other option is, because you keep acting like there is one, but refusing to give an example of what that would be, because a monorepo is no solution for the problems being discussed here in the article, which to be clear, are not limited to code.
You've made it very clear you think we should have done "something" else, but refuse to articulate what that is. If it's not known, or not explored, then I posit we didn't "choose" this path, it's the path that was open to us.
> You’re discussing how to live in the house after the foundation cracked.
You keep saying we should have used something else for the foundation that wouldn't crack, but refuse to explain what this mythical material is.
What is your proposed alternative, or are you just waxing theoretical?
You still don’t get what I’m saying, and at this point it’s not a disagreement, it’s a category error.
I am not saying the problem is impossible. I am saying the problem is obvious, stupid, and solvable in theory, and that the only actual solution is to rewrite the foundation from scratch. That is precisely why there is no practical path forward. The impracticality is the point.
When you keep asking me to name an alternative, you’re implicitly assuming I’m advocating for some incremental migration or deployable fix inside the current ecosystem. I am not. There isn’t one. If you want whole system static guarantees, you need a database that is designed from the beginning to be part of the same language and type system as the application. Queries are programs. Schemas are types. The datastore is a compiled artifact, not a remote string interpreter. That requires a fundamentally different database.
That is the alternative. And it is completely unrealistic to retrofit into the existing world. Which is why we are stuck.
So when you say I’m “waxing theoretical,” you’ve missed the entire point. The theory is the indictment. The fact that the solution is obvious but unusable is exactly the problem. We built ourselves into a corner decades ago, and everything we now call “systems engineering” is about managing the consequences of that decision.
The article is fine. It surveys techniques for surviving in the world as it exists. I am not disputing their usefulness. I am saying those techniques exist because we accepted a broken foundation and normalized it. That distinction matters.
You keep arguing as if I’m refusing to answer your question. I’m answering it directly. The answer just isn’t one you like. The only real fix is a ground up rewrite of the data layer and its relationship to code, and that’s never going to happen at scale. That’s the conclusion. Understand?
If you think that means the path we’re on was the only one available, then we fundamentally disagree about what “choice” means in system design.
You’re still trying to refute a design critique by demanding an escape hatch, which only proves you never understood what was being critiqued.
I ask you what to use instead, and how to deal with datastore versioning.
You say you're talking about how we don't have type safety that extends to the remote systems we're interacting with.
I ask how that helps versioning problems with these systems where you need to deal with applying changes across distributes systems, which specifically is not solved by having types in lockstep definition between systems, because in application of change there are problems to work thought.
You note we did all this deliberately and we didn't have to. I keep asking you what the other option is, because you keep acting like there is one, but refusing to give an example of what that would be, because a monorepo is no solution for the problems being discussed here in the article, which to be clear, are not limited to code.
You've made it very clear you think we should have done "something" else, but refuse to articulate what that is. If it's not known, or not explored, then I posit we didn't "choose" this path, it's the path that was open to us.
> You’re discussing how to live in the house after the foundation cracked.
You keep saying we should have used something else for the foundation that wouldn't crack, but refuse to explain what this mythical material is.
What is your proposed alternative, or are you just waxing theoretical?