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.
> With the llms these days, any linux issue is fixable within minutes.
I think this point is really it. What in the past needed a 40min google search to fix something, llms now fix it in seconds.
It was going to be the future of Software Engineering in the 2000s, Software Architects laying out boxes for Software Bricklayers to implement as dictated, code generation tools were going to make programming trivial.
For trivial CRUD apps, and maintaining modified versions of the generated code was a nightmare.
I can't say I relate at all (5 years of experience).
They'll have to pry my 1000-line .zshrc from my cold, dead hands.
For example, zsh-autosuggestions improves my quality of life so ridiculously much it's not even funny.
I moved away from 1000 lines .zshrc when I had to do stuff on linux VMs/dockers and I was lost a lot. But you zsh-autosuggestions, and fzf-tab is not going anywhere.
Chess.com is fundamentally a scam operation masquerading as a premium service. They've built an empire by paywalking features that should be free - and ARE free elsewhere. Lichess proves every single day that unlimited puzzles, deep analysis, opening exploration, and even advanced features like studies and cloud analysis don't need to cost a dime. They're open-source, ad-free, and completely transparent about their finances.
So like Windows then? Cause a free alternative exists?
Or farmers markets? Cause you can just grow all those crops for free yourself.
Or carpenters? Just get some tools, do your home renovations for free.
Or sex workers? Cause you can just go to a bar and get it for free.
Oh, they are differences between the free and the pay options? The occupy different niches in the marketplace? You don't say. Maybe they are not scams after all, just cater to different tastes.
(I also prefer lichess over chess.com but that doesn't mean I think this is a reasonable argument.)
A better analogy: imagine if someone built a public water fountain, then chess.com set up next to it selling the exact same water for $100/year while limiting the public fountain to 1 cup per day through lobbying. Then they sponsored all the popular hydration influencers to only drink their bottled water on camera.
> Cause you can just go to a bar and get it for free.
Not at the same convenience, can you ;)
So they are selling convenience. Chess.com isn't selling convenience - both platforms are websites you access identically. They're not offering portability or solving a distribution problem. They're artificially limiting a digital service that costs them essentially nothing to provide unlimited access to.
If you know how to run such a platform for free, then I'm sure you could sell your knowledge for a lot of money. And the company running chess.com would be your highest paying customer.
In other words, I think you are underestimating the effort. Just ask the lichess guys.
"Look how global we are… as long as you have a U.S. address, the correct passport, a bank account in a supported country, a smartphone with the correct OS."
I get that it works, and it's actually pretty cool that you can do this. But honestly, it feels like it would good, readable code into a tangled mess pretty fast.
> it feels like it would good, readable code into a tangled mess pretty fast
It definitively can, no doubt about it. But used sparingly and only when there is no other way, it can help you remove enormous amount of boilerplate and other things, in a relatively simple, fast and safe way. In my codebases, it does lead to a lot less code, even when most projects just have 2 or 3 macros at most.
Just as one basic example that comes to mind just because I had to do it today: imagine you have a testing suite. When some assertion fails, you'd like to display what value was expected, what value it actually got, and what the exact code was. In JavaScript, I think the most you'd be able to get without involving 3rd party compilers, reading source code from disk or whatnot, would be some functions name (`myfn.toString()`), while in Clojure your macro could capture the entire source code within it, and print it, trivially.
Basically, if you want a function that can take the arguments without evaluating them before executing it, you can do so with macros but without macros you cannot do that. Personally, being able to do so leads to me finding simpler solutions, and expressing them in better ways, compared to if I didn't have them available.
Still, 128MB is not enough to even run Debian let alone Apache/NGINX. I’m on my phone, but it doesn’t seem like the author is using Cloudflare or another CDN. I’d like to know what they are doing.
* Thin clients with only 256 MiB RAM and 400 MHz are possible, though more RAM and faster processors are recommended.
* For workstations, diskless workstations and standalone systems, 1500 MHz and 1024 MiB RAM are the absolute minimum requirements. For running modern webbrowsers and LibreOffice at least 2048 MiB RAM is recommended.
That's for some educational distro, which presumably is running some fancy desktop environment with fancy GUI programs. I don't think that is reflective of what a web server needs.
A web server is really only going to be running 3 things: init, sshd, and the web server software. Even if we give init and sshd half of 128 MB, there's still 64 MB left for the web server.
Theoretically, sure. But standard Linux distros are much heavier these days. See my other reply on this thread.
Unless the author is using some very slim distribution or perhaps something more interesting, it’s a challenge to run an up to date HTTP server like Apache or nginx on 128MB alone, even though it shouldn’t.
Moving bytes around doesn't take RAM but CPU. Notice how switches don't advertise how many gigabytes of RAM they have, but can push a few gigabits of content around between all 24 ports at once without even going expensive
Also, the HN homepage is pretty tame so long as you don't run WordPress. You don't get more than a few requests per second, so multiply that with the page size (images etc.) and you probably get a few megabits as bandwidth, no problem even for a Raspberry Pi 1 if the sdcard can read fast enough or the files are mapped to RAM by the kernel
reply