One of the most salient features of our Tech Hiring culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.
well the trade-off here is that by using parallelism, you will probably spend more time coding and debugging your code.
I think it's fine to do the simple thing by default and parallelize only when you have measured that it's worth it
Agreed, to some extent. If you have a clear way of determining which query failed and why, it shouldn't be taking you more time to debug whenever one of them throws an error.
One of the most salient features of our Tech Hiring culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.
It depends, if you have two http queries that are totally independant OK, but if you have a number of asynchronous calls that do side effects, it's much harder to reason about it if you add parallelism
That's a good point yeah, it can make it much harder to determine the cause of everything falling apart. It really should be done in the right circumstances.
well the trade-off here is that by using parallelism, you will probably spend more time coding and debugging your code.
I think it's fine to do the simple thing by default and parallelize only when you have measured that it's worth it
Agreed, to some extent. If you have a clear way of determining which query failed and why, it shouldn't be taking you more time to debug whenever one of them throws an error.
As you said, it must be a calculated risk.
It depends, if you have two http queries that are totally independant OK, but if you have a number of asynchronous calls that do side effects, it's much harder to reason about it if you add parallelism
That's a good point yeah, it can make it much harder to determine the cause of everything falling apart. It really should be done in the right circumstances.
Async with side effects is my nightmare :(