Threads for efrench

  1. 6

    I don’t really agree with this, like, at all.

    The author talks about how project-based learning fails, and then suggests…more little projects?

    The author complains about choice of languages for teaching and being too vocational, ignoring that this line of thinking taken to its logical conclusion would mean we only cover pure math in school (which, while tempting, seems a bit misguided given the code I’ve seen written by mathematicians learning languages on the job).

    The author’s biggest argument is that projects fail to teach and they show this by constructing a strawman where somebody is excited about a project and decides to pair with somebody who takes all of the tasks they wanted to learn from. First, I don’t think most projects have this neat organization of tasks into a spreadsheet making it easy to swipe the juicy bits. Second, if the purpose was learning I’m pretty sure the person who wanted to learn networking would’ve objected when the networking tasks were all swiped. Lastly, it just seemed like more of an argument for not pairing.

    Oh, and then of course, the author sells us on their new course designed to teach us (via drills, which are not totally not toy projects , because the ad just told us that projects don’t work).

    Just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    Edit: The author, ladies and gentlemen. This background does suggests a very academic bend, which might explain the approach taken–that, and their desire to sell coaching.

    1. 2

      I agree with you. As both a trained musician and programmer, the parallels drawn in this post are in pretty bad faith. The core antagonism of the argument is “sometimes you don’t get to do the things you need to practice” which has nothing at all to do with projects.

    1. 14

      This seems less about Kafka and more of an indictment of WeWork (which I’m absolutely here for), but should be titled as such.

      1. 3

        I don’t see anything wrong with using a specific case study to make a more general point. While it’s not possible to know the exact real numbers, the chain of steps that leads to the estimate of 11 writes/second is a reasonable one, and then raises the legitimate question of whether something like Kafka is really needed to handle that load.

        This feels a lot like the “you don’t have Big Data” articles that used to go around a few years ago.

        1. 2

          The 11 writes/sec was based off the assumption that you only want to track people entering/leaving buildings.

          WeWork uses technology A to solve problem B.

          The author’s argument: you don’t need A because your real problem is C which is solved by D (solving C with A is overkill).

          The argument is fine, but it’s a critique of people (WeWork in this case) solving the wrong problems , not the technology they use to solve them. I see why the title confuses people because they interpret it as “you don’t need Kafka to solve Kafka problems” when in reality it’s meant to read as “you don’t need Kafka because you don’t have Kafka problems”.

          1. 1

            I also wonder if they even need Kafka to store all those datapoints. I think the article could have argued that a beefy postgres instance is enough even for all their data.

        2. 1

          Why do you feel like this letter was not about Kafka?

          1. 1

            It’s still about Kafka, just seems like WeWork was the focal point.

        1. 2

          I don’t have anything unique to add here, but I would like to say I went down almost this exact same trail of papers and reading after a bad project experience. The focus on MVC, and how it’s assumptions ended up falling apart because the design wasn’t well defined well, completely turned me off from huge swaths work.