-
Out of curiosity, what are the objections to stored procedures?
-
The three main points that I usually talk about when opposing SP’s are:
- They (generally) aren’t stored in source control. Especially in larger codebases, this complicates deployments and integration substantially.
- SQL makes expressing lots of kinds of business logic awkward at best and horrific/impossible at worst.
- Automated testing facilities for SQL and stored procedures is lackluster or non-existent. In either case they rely on - often complex - data being populated and make de-coupling hard.
-
-
I’m going to be trying to get performance to an acceptable level on my clojure NES emulator. In particular, testing to see if using a transient for all emulation in between frames with substantially improve rendering - which is presently about 1fps :-(
System library bindings or dependency bindings aren’t the only kind of application dependencies. Many (most?) applications also have system level dependencies, e.g. sendmail, specific versions of a language runtime, specific versions of imagemagick, organisation specific custom applications, legacy configuration details etc. It’s not clear to me what the author’s answer to this problem is.
He also glosses over what I consider to be one of docker’s biggest advantages: simplifying development environment dependency. Docker as a simpler and faster development environment tool is unmatched. After all, at some point you have to build that static binary from it’s constituent parts, most often in different environments (CI, development machines).
Specifically what dependencies? If I go and build say separate images of each of these as isolated intermediate files, then link them (sort of like busybox), what is the net benefit to be “simpler and faster” with Docker create?