One unique core concept per tenant, because the SaaS is nominally multi-tenant but it's really N unrelated websites for N enterprise customers in a trenchcoat
> If you can solve the same problem in a simpler way without using k8s
I think I disagree with this, or at least the implication. I think it is true you can solve EACH OF THISE PROBLEMS INDIVIDUALLY in a simpler way than Kubernetes, the fact that you are going to have to solve at least 5-10 of those problems individually makes the sum total more complicated than Kubernetes, not to mention bespoke. The Kubernetes solutions are all designed to work together, and when they fail to work together, you are more likely to find answers when you search for it because everyone is using the same thing.
I think it is fair to say k8s is not a zero cost abstraction, but nothing you use instead is going to be, either, and when you do run into a situation where that abstraction breaks, it will be easier to find a solution for kubernetes than it will for the random 5 solutions you pieced together yourself.
Sure, but concurrent != parallel. You can't have data races with a single thread of execution - a while loop writing i=0 or i=1 on each iteration is not a data race.
Two async functions doing so is not a data race either.
You should really look up the definition of race condition; it has nothing to do with parallel processing. Parallel processing just makes it harder to deal with.
You're mixing up quite a few somewhat related but different concepts: data races, race conditions, concurrency and parallelism.
Concurrency is needed for race conditions, parallelism is needed for data races. Many single threaded runtimes including JS have concurrency, and hence the potential for race conditions, but don't have parallelism and hence no data races.
Concurrency with a single thread of execution runs with complete mutual exclusion, so no "pure" single threaded concurrency is definitely race condition free.
What we may argue over (and it becomes more of a what definition to use): IO/external event loop/signal handlers. These can cause race conditions even in a single threaded program, but one may argue (this is sort of where I am) that these are then not single threaded. The kernel IO operation is most definitely not running on the same thread of execution as JS.
I think I have been fairly consistent in the definition of a data race as a type of race condition, where a specific shared memory is written to while other(s) read it with no synchronization mechanism. This can be safe (most notably OpenJDK's implementation is tear-free, no primitive or reference pointer may ever be observed as a value not explicitly set by a writer), or unsafe (c/c++/rust with unsafe, surprisingly go) where you have tearing and e.g. a pointer data race can cause the pointer to appear as a value that was never set by anyone, causing a segfault or worse.
I like the Single responsibility part of SOLID. It makes the code much easier to reason about. The Liskov Substitution principle is also super important. Subclasses should fully replace the parent class.
The I and O of solid are fine and don’t cause too many problems.
But I agree that Dependency Inversion is a recipe for loads of pointless interfaces that are only ever used once. I strongly prefer the traditional pattern where high level modules depend on lower level modules, it’s much simpler.
The few on this page today who object to SOLID seem likely to me to be functional programmers who have never understood software engineering principles in the first place.
Weird take--SOLID, to me (I work in embedded but have done basically everything), represents a system of design principles that mean well and are probably fine in a heavily OO environment 80% of the time but resoundingly end up prime examples of the pareto principle.
I'm seeing some hate for SOLID in these comments and I am a little surprised. While I don't think it should ever be used religiously, I would much rather work on a team that understood the principles than one that didn't.
That's interesting, what makes you think that? Not long ago, I was working on my degree in Computer Science (Software Engineering), and we were heavily drilled on this principle. Even then, I found it amusing how all the professors were huge fanboys of SOLID. It was very dogmatic.
Professors ... They are likely knowledgeable about the abstract things in computer science, but when it comes to actually writing code and guidance on that, I would only trust the ones, that have a background of getting deep into the code and actually making things. For example when I was studying I experienced a variety of professors:
One who was a Python core developer and who knew many languages and could "compile in his head" what the result of some code will be in assembly. I would trust this one.
One, who criticized my C code for having multiple procedures, because that would make it look after more pointers and told me it would be better all in one long procedure, lol, without ever even considering the readability. That one was likely also simply wrong because of the compiler probably inlining things anyway. That one taught a math lecture and used C. Needless to say I wouldn't trust that one when it comes to writing good code.
Then I had a math physics guy, who wrote Java 5 or earlier code when it was Java 8 times. That one didn't use generics at all, and cast to Object instead and whatever else. He also explained, that he uses bit shift in a for loop variable update, because that was faster than *2. Yeah, also wouldn't trust that one to give any advice on how to write good code. It taught me to be very skeptical of mathematicians writing code, unless they have a proven track record of software development skills. This kind of person is the reason why mathematicians and physicists should be supported by an actual software developer, to write their code, and not be too ignorant or arrogant to consider hiring one.
I also had one professor, who taught a math lecture in such a bad way, that it was hard to follow and even his writing on the blackboard was illegible. That one also had another lecture which was mostly talk about Internet and web concepts in one of the most grating accents imaginable, almost comical. I wouldn't trust that one to give advice on writing good code.
In modern terms, it's marketing slop. It is what ChatGPT could have created at the time if it was asked to select a bunch of "best practices" and form a punchy acronym out of them.
There's no system, it's five rules selected at random.
Worse, their usefulness varies from hopelessly vague through trivial to actively confusing.
"TCC avoids many anomalies of eventual consistency, eschews the synchronization costs of strong consistency, and supports interactive read-write transactions. Partial replication is another attractive design choice for building geo-replicated platforms, as it increases the storage capacity and reduces update propagation costs."
