| ▲ | pjungwir 3 days ago |
| I've seen this a lot when someone wants to add "workflow automation" or "scripting" to their app. The most success I'd had is embedding either Lua or Javascript (preferably Lua) with objects/functions from the business domain available to the user's script. This is what games do too. I think it's a great way to dodge most of the work. For free you can support flow control, arbitrary boolean expressions, math, etc. |
|
| ▲ | whstl 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I find that the #1 reason people add those "simpler than Lua" homegrown languages in Enterprise is to allow non-programmers to program. This not only has a tremendous cost to develop (compared to something like embedding Lua) but it also creates the worst kind of spaghetti. One of the most unhinged pieces of software I have ever seen was the one from a fintech I worked with. Visual programming, used by business specialists. Zero abstraction support, so lots of forced repetition. No synchronous function call, so lots of duplications or partitioning to simulate it. Since there were two failed versions, there are three incompatible versions of this system running in parallel and migration from one to the other must be done manually. The problem is about 90% of the business rules were encoded into this system, because business people were in a hurry. People wanted a report but didn't want to wait for Business Intelligence? Let's add "tags" to records so they appear on certain screens, and then remove them when they shouldn't anymore. In the end the solution was adding "experts" to use it, but the ones who actually knew or learned any programming would just end up escaping to other companies. |
|
| ▲ | atoav 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| One pitfall that is so obvious it hurts (but I have seen people fall into it), goes a bit like this: 1. We have a python application 2. We need a configuration format, we pick one of the usual (ini/toml/yaml/...) 3. We want to allow more than usual to be done in this config, so let's build some more complex stuff based on special strings etc. Now the thing they should have considered in step 3 is why not just use a python file for configuration? Sure this comes with pitfalls as you now allow people who write the config to do similar things than the application, but you are already using a programming language, why not just use it for your overly complex configuration? For in house stuff this could certainly be more viable than writing your own parser. |
| |
| ▲ | 10000truths 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Because now, anything that wants to read that config has to be written in Python. You've chained yourself to a stack just for a dynamic config. I ran into this issue at a previous job, but with a service that leaned heavily on hundreds of Django models. It made it impossible to use those models as a source of truth for anything unless you used Python and imported a heavyweight framework. It was the biggest blocker for a C++ rewrite of the service, which was really bad because we were having performance issues and were already reaching our scaling limits. Declarative configs are preferable for keeping your options open as to who or what consumes them. For cases where config as code is truly necessary, the best option is to pick something that's built for exactly that, like Lua (or some other embedded scripting language+runtime with bindings for every language). | | |
| ▲ | lifeisstillgood 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I would tread carefully around this (although you know the specifics !). Simply being tied to one language is rarely a bad thing - at a certain point in a company size growth, having a common language and set of tools (logging, dbase wrappers etc) acts as a force multiplier beyond individual team leads preferences. I would be interested in exactly what scaling issues you hit but I would ask if Inwere financing the company if overcoming scaling problems in python would cost less and lead to better cadence than a migration to C++ | | |
| ▲ | mplanchard 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I’ve worked in several python shops, and now work with Rust. Python’s performance can be a real cost problem at scale. Where this bit us in the past was with the sheer number of containers and nodes we had to spin up in k8s to support comparatively moderate traffic in a relatively simple web application. It’s been a while, so take the numbers with a grain of salt, but where we might have needed 10 pods across several nodes to process a measly 100 req/s, we can easily handle that with a single pod running a web application written in rust, with plenty of room to spare. I suspect some of it is due to the GIL: you need to scale instances rather than threads to get more performance in Python. Anyway, at some point the cost of all those extra nodes adds up, or your database can’t handle the absurd number of concurrent connections all your pods are establishing, or whatever. |
| |
| ▲ | halfcat a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > impossible to use those models as a source of truth for anything unless you used Python Django models are just a SQL database under the hood. Is there a reason you couldn’t just connect to the database from C++? |
| |
| ▲ | IshKebab 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This can sometimes be a good idea. But it isn't without downsides. Now your config file is Python and capable of doing anything Python can do (which isn't necessarily a good idea), it's no longer safe, you now have to deal with shitty Python tooling, you might have to debug crashes/lockups in your config files, you can no long switch implementation languages, etc. etc. It isn't a magic solution. | | |
| ▲ | atoav 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Not that this is a magic or even a good solution, I just wanted to mention that sometimes you already have the thing you are looking for directly under your nose. I never had any project were a toml config wasn't enough. |
| |
| ▲ | gaogao 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | One improvement though is using Starlark, instead of directly Python, since it offers a lot of advantages for a more lightweight runtime and parallelism. |
|
|
| ▲ | tonyedgecombe 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've done both. I embedded VBScript/JScript in an app via Microsoft's Active Scripting[1] interfaces and wrote a template language that grew to contain typical programming language constructs. Looking back it was the VBScript/JScript functionality that caused me the most problems. Especially when I migrated the whole app from C++ to .Net. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Scripting |
|
| ▲ | brunospars 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| i yearn for an alternate reality where every unix command/service had the same syntax and a lua interpreter. |
| |
