Reddit Programming

Message Queue vs Task Queue vs Message Broker: why are these always mixed up?
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1stchku/message_queue_vs_task_queue_vs_message_broker_why/

Title: Message Queue vs Task Queue vs Message Broker: why are these always mixed up? While working with Celery, Redis, and RabbitMQ, I kept seeing people use message queue, task queue, and message broker interchangeably. After looking into the documentation and real implementations, here’s how I understand it: Message Queue: just moves messages (one consumer per message). Message Broker: manages queues, routes, retries, and protocols. Task Queue: executes actual jobs using workers. They’re not alternatives; they work together in production systems. One interesting thing I noticed is that a lot of confusion comes from tools like Redis, which can act as both a simple queue and a broker-like system, and Celery, which abstracts everything. I’m curious how others think about this. Do you keep these concepts separate in your architecture or treat them more loosely? I also wrote a deeper breakdown with examples (Celery, RabbitMQ, SQS) if anyone’s interested.  submitted by /u/Civil_Station_1164 (https://www.reddit.com/user/Civil_Station_1164)
[link] (https://medium.com/@yashvaishnav1404/message-queue-and-task-queue-when-to-use-them-fe3a694f6433) [comments] (https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1stchku/message_queue_vs_task_queue_vs_message_broker_why/)

3 views22:32

Reddit Programming

How good engineers write bad code at big companies
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1stf10u/how_good_engineers_write_bad_code_at_big_companies/

submitted by /u/fagnerbrack (https://www.reddit.com/user/fagnerbrack)
[link] (https://www.seangoedecke.com/bad-code-at-big-companies/) [comments] (https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1stf10u/how_good_engineers_write_bad_code_at_big_companies/)

3 views22:33

Reddit Programming

Kafka for Architects • Ekaterina Gorshkova & Viktor Gamov
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1sth0eg/kafka_for_architects_ekaterina_gorshkova_viktor/

submitted by /u/goto-con (https://www.reddit.com/user/goto-con)
[link] (https://youtu.be/6Uks7r652T8?list=PLEx5khR4g7PJbSLmADahf0LOpTLifiCra) [comments] (https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1sth0eg/kafka_for_architects_ekaterina_gorshkova_viktor/)

4 views22:34

Reddit Programming

Refactoring: Express Selections as Tables
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1stk8t6/refactoring_express_selections_as_tables/

How much of your code is actually just data pretending to be logic? Here’s a simple refactoring to make it explicit.  submitted by /u/nephrenka (https://www.reddit.com/user/nephrenka)
[link] (https://adamtornhill.substack.com/p/refactoring-express-selections-as) [comments] (https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1stk8t6/refactoring_express_selections_as_tables/)

4 views22:35

Reddit Programming

Your Models Know Their Own Schema. Let Them Show You.
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1su5k7i/your_models_know_their_own_schema_let_them_show/

submitted by /u/jsheffi (https://www.reddit.com/user/jsheffi)
[link] (https://jeffield.net/blog/your-models-know-their-own-schema-let-them-show-you/) [comments] (https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1su5k7i/your_models_know_their_own_schema_let_them_show/)

1 view02:25

Reddit Programming

While GitHub Actions remains a key part of this vision, we are allocating resources towards other areas ...
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1su5w1d/while_github_actions_remains_a_key_part_of_this/

Looking at it backwards - where is this heading? The official toolkit is falling behind, the action repos READMEs (https://github.com/actions/upload-artifact/blob/main/README.md#note) all state: We continue to focus our resources on strategic areas that help our customers be successful while making developers' lives easier. While GitHub Actions remains a key part of this vision, we are allocating resources towards other areas of Actions and are not taking contributions to this repository at this time. But then back in 2022, it was the toolkit that was primary, CLI not being worth to keep in sync (linked issue (https://github.com/cli/cli/issues/5416#issuecomment-1092924500)). So: What other areas? Is this a subliminal message to let co-pilot put something together without worrying much about any of the architecture? From the design standpoint, GHA looks like on life support, but that's nowhere it should be from the product lifecycle aspect of things. My OP on r/github (https://www.reddit.com/r/github): TL;DR I suppose some of the below might (if you will) be assigned to a "learning curve issue", but all in all and given Microsoft's budget: Are GHA basically a "launch and forget" product? Is the official toolkit supposed to become "outsourced" to the Marketplace? Is this meant to be production quality tooling? Because it feels a bit like an experiment that got abandoned. I went to build a relatively simple pipeline with a couple of reusable workflows, bunch of composite actions and make use of GHCR where the images that are used to run the jobs reside - they are built from workflows too. There's been quite a few gotchas to me so far. Workflows and composite actions discrepancies workflows can define top-level env, actions cannot workflows can (in fact, must) pass in secrets actions do not support secrets (and one better remembers to ::addmask:: on anything passed in) workflows must define types on inputs strictly (and it ends up being string all of the time) workflows must not define types on secrets actions must not define types on inputs Reusable workflows do not get anything checked out with them, not even if called from separate repo, but composite actions do get everything checked out alongside in that case - in fact all the other actions from their repo get checked out. There's no reasonable way to share inputs between workflow_call: and repository_dispatch:, i.e. one needs to make extra job to reconcile inputs in these two cases even it could be all structured the same in client_payload. Composite actions have not been designed to be nested when sharing the same repo, i.e. calling one from within another requires one to fully specify the user/repo/action@ref even if it is meant to use the very same one, thus making it necessary to keep updating @ref for every push - or avoid using the construct altogether and resort to e.g. shared scripts. Aside: Debugging Talking of scripts, one cannot see outputs unless tee -a $GITHUB_OUTPUT >&2, which makes one want to use multi-line HEREDOC - not exactly robust approach. And that only works for steps, obviously. Then having shell run by default with set -e with no indication on which line it exited is a bit of a nightmare. Either good for running single-liners, always setting own trap ERR or resorting to copious error output that kills readability of CI scripting, always. I suppose the single-liners were expected because every Run folds into its first line which is best to be some # summary comment since description is not supported on steps. Alas, calling actions has to be with no comments. The initial temptation to have anything multi-line inside scripts that are then single-liners however results in the realisation that - see above - workflows do

1 view02:26

About

Blog

Apps

Platform