> PostGIS is a great database and its foundational data type is geography.
Hate to "well ackchyually" the author here, but I'm gonna. The foundational data type in PostGIS is not geography, but geometry. geography is geodetic layer on top of geometry. I honestly don't use geography that much because it only supports a subset of the geometry functions.
I personally hate YAGNI, because it so often leads to balkanized APIs that only implement the "needed" features and omit things that a reasonable person would expect because they weren't needed initially. Far better to have a clear and explicable model that is fully and consistently implemented.
Yes I agree with this. It’s all a matter of taste and interpretation at the end of the day. YAGNI has been useful for me in stopping the development of truly complex featureful work that is not needed. But you can go overkill and strip away everything that makes your application nice to use, or that makes your domain representation syntactically complete. And that’s just stupid.
DDIA is great. I read and re-read the small section about LSM merge tree in the first and second edition of the book and got interested in this stuff. It is always a pleasure to read about internals.
8 comments:
> PostGIS is a great database and its foundational data type is geography.
Hate to "well ackchyually" the author here, but I'm gonna. The foundational data type in PostGIS is not geography, but geometry. geography is geodetic layer on top of geometry. I honestly don't use geography that much because it only supports a subset of the geometry functions.
The Grug Brain article is fantastic, and even better if you run it through an LLM to convert from caveman. This thing is a gem.
Yeah I really struggled to read the style of writing and gave up even though I know I probably totally agree with the message
I personally hate YAGNI, because it so often leads to balkanized APIs that only implement the "needed" features and omit things that a reasonable person would expect because they weren't needed initially. Far better to have a clear and explicable model that is fully and consistently implemented.
Yes I agree with this. It’s all a matter of taste and interpretation at the end of the day. YAGNI has been useful for me in stopping the development of truly complex featureful work that is not needed. But you can go overkill and strip away everything that makes your application nice to use, or that makes your domain representation syntactically complete. And that’s just stupid.
DDIA is great. I read and re-read the small section about LSM merge tree in the first and second edition of the book and got interested in this stuff. It is always a pleasure to read about internals.
Grug.
Thanks for a drop of humanity in this place. I feel saner