The server CPU’s are called epyc and they are powerful, but not in the same way.

Server CPU’s are geared to different types of workloads but if you built a desktop workstation with decent one it would be still be a beast.

I wasn’t arguing that the server CPU’s aren’t powerful, i was saying that the latest ryzen desktop cpu was something I’d personally consider to also be powerful.

The threadrippers are also up there in terms of power, but the OP was specifically talking about ryzen.

I mean, going by wikipedia the latest (desktop) ryzen cpu released was the 9950X3D…i’d personally tag that as powerful.

everybody has their subjective scale of power i suppose.

My experiences are similar to yours, though less k8’s focused and more general DevSecOps.

it becomes a battle between custom-fitting and generalisation.

This is mentioned in the link as “Barely General Enough” I’m not sure i fully subscribe to that specific interpretation but the trade off between generalisation and specialisation is certainly a point of contention in all but the smallest dev houses (assuming they are not just cranking hard coded one-off solutions).

I dislike the yaml syntax, in the same way i dislike python, but it is pervasive in the industry at the moment so you work with that you have.

I don’t think yaml is the issue as much as the uncontrolled nature of the usage.

You’d have the same issue with any format as flexible to interpretation that was being created/edited by hand.

As in, if the yaml were generated and used automatically as part of a chain i don’t think it’d be an issue, but it is not nearly prescriptive enough to produce the high level kind of model definitions further up the requirements stack.

note: i’m not saying it couldn’t be done in yaml, i’m saying that it would be a massive effort to shoehorn what was needed into a structure that wasn’t designed for that kind of thing

Which then brings use back to the generalisation vs specialisation argument, do you create a hyper-specific dsl that allows you only to define things that will work within the boundaries of what you want, does that mean it can only work in those boundaries or do you introduce more general definitions and the complexity that comes with that.

Whether or not the solution is another layer of abstraction into a different format or something else entirely i’m not sure, but i am sure that raw yaml isn’t it.

AFAICT MASD is an iteration on MDE which incorporates parts of MAD but not in a direct fashion.

Lots of acronyms there.

These types of systems do exist, they just aren’t mainstream because there hasn’t been a version of them that could be easily used for general development outside of the specific mid-level niches they are built in.

I think it’s the goal, but I’ve not seen anything come close yet.

Admittedly I’m not an authority so it may just be me missing the important things.

so, MASD(or MDE) then ?

That’s one of the reasons why you get delayed or cancelled, over-budget projects that go nowhere. ( another big one is corruption and general financial shenanigans ).

if you throw a lot of money at a problem/project that doesn’t have reasonable management and competent understanding of where that money could work efficiently then you’re asking for trouble.

Destinating more resources to that quickens and makes better that process, though, incentivating people to work on it and test it.

That is charmingly naive, in my experience.

I’m not saying more money wouldn’t help, I’m saying throwing money at it isn’t generally a stand-alone solution, which is what i think the person you were replying to was trying to say.

It’s interesting as a subject but I dislike this as a presentation format.

This is the video equivalent of “this meeting could have been an email”.

Also his voice and cadence are irritating, but I recognise that that’s a personal gripe. Certainly an “old man shouts at cloud” moment but coked up youtuber energy isn’t my jam.