file system as a database

So it turns out that mv is an atomic operation if the source and destination are on the same device. This means that transforming and shuttling data between files can in theory be done in a transactional manner at the cost of some extra space. Here is an example workflow that came up at work: Continue reading

making chroots

Recently I had to build a chroot for CentOS 6.4 and I kept getting RPM DB errors. The errors were because I was building the chroot on a CentOS 7 box. After banging my head against the wall for a while I discovered that once yum is installed in the chroot it is much better to change into the chroot, rebuild the RPM DB to fix the errors, and then install all further packages from within the chroot. The finished chroot can be used as-is or imported into Docker.

broken by design

So it turns out making “broken things” and then “fixing” them by heeding the opinion of some person higher up in the social/corporate hierarchy is nothing new

According to Vasari Pier Soderini (the Mayor of Florence) was standing beneath the statue as it was put into place. The Mayor complained to Michelangelo that the nose was too thick. Michelangelo tricked Soderini by climbing the statue with a chisel and some marble dust concealed in his hand, pretending to work on the nose and sending down a shower of dust, he asked Soderini if it was improved, the Mayor replied “I like it better, you have given it life”.

I wish I could say that this kind of trickery is unnecessary in software but I would be lying.

low level languages

What are the characteristics of a low level language? Some people consider bit twiddling and managing memory to be low level issues and C by that definition is a low level language. Others say the more declarative the language the more high level it is. Again, by that definition C is a low level language and languages like Java, Scala, Prolog, and Haskell are not. I disagree. Continue reading

interview questions (merging hashes)

The motivation for this one is that configuration for various development and production environments is often expressed in some kind of key/value format. Yaml and Json are the popular choices. You can also imagine at some point thinking that you can provide some kind of override mechanism for taking a development configuration and turning it into a production configuration by providing overrides for the keys you want to change in production. I’m not convinced this is a good way of doing things but let’s follow along anyway. Continue reading

beholden to dumb and static things

What is a compiler? It’s many things but the one thing it’s not is a dynamically extensible structure transformer. The reason you write code is because the compiler can only understand certain structures and you have to specify everything in terms of those structures. Static type systems are an excellent example of those fixed and rigid structures. A type system baked into a language is forever and can only be extended by modifying the compiler code directly. Now think about that a little bit: all the code you write is to teach the compiler how to perform new structure transformation in terms of the ones the compiler already understands. What if your compiler could be extended to work with those structures directly? Wouldn’t that be something? In that world all abstractions would be zero-cost instead of the ones the compiler writers thought should be zero-cost.

kill the technical interview

Update: Patrick McKenzie, Erin Ptacek, and Thomas Ptacek actually have a pretty good way of hacking the problem. I recommend heading their way and signing up for whatever it is they have in the works because there is no way it will be as bad as the usual technical interview process.

I’ve been trying to hack around the technical interview process but so far I’ve been unsuccessful. That’s not to say the experience has not been worthwhile. My ability to discriminate between professional software shops and amateur ones has increased a little bit. Here are the criteria I’ve settled on. Continue reading

not rocket science (bundled chef cookbooks)

It is possible to do configuration management right but it is also possible to do it wrong. One way to do it wrong is to combine the provisioning and deployment logic into various cookbooks and isolate them from the applications that depend on them. The reason this is wrong is because to understand how the application works in production you now have to chase down dependencies somewhere else and once you get there the cookbooks will not make much sense because they will make assumptions about the application. This is all a long-winded way of saying you are keeping track of two contexts when in reality there is really just one context, the application and its associated infrastructure logic. Continue reading