Etcd, or, why modern software makes me sad
As far as I can tell, the only thing this article is saying is that the author doesn&#x27;t like gRPC, preferring hand-rolled APIs.  (The rest of the rant doesn&#x27;t really talk enough about the problems to respond to.  The author doesn&#x27;t like Kubernetes.  The author doesn&#x27;t like systemd.  The author doesn&#x27;t like software-defined networking.  No reason is given as to why, so there is really no way to have a constructive conversation about it.)<p>Hand rolled APIs are easier to understand, but harder to maintain.  It&#x27;s great if you&#x27;re only ever going to have one client, but once you need more than one, it&#x27;s sure tedious to write and rewrite it for every language you want to support.  Using gRPC means that you can auto-generate the client, and while they might not be as wonderful as writing each one of them by hand, at least you can get a client for whatever language you&#x27;re using.  And, the clients all behave the same way -- trying to figure out how to add interceptors to every bespoke client you need is quite tedious.  (Look at how long it took AWS to get contexts in go, or how hard it is to add OpenTelemetry to the random hand-rolled HTTP client, etc.  With gRPC, you just do those things once!)<p>Using protos as the transport layer lets you make backwards-compatible changes smoothly; adding fields is safe, renaming fields is safe, etc.  The same is not true of using JSON -- if you call something &quot;foo&quot;, you can&#x27;t just one day rename it to &quot;bar&quot;.  Clients won&#x27;t know what &quot;bar&quot; is.  So you have to update clients and servers at the same time, and you can never &quot;make before break&quot;.  You see this all the time when someone rolls out a client&#x2F;server update for a browser app -- your browser cached the Javascript, and it can&#x27;t talk to the server anymore until that cache expires.  It&#x27;s nasty.  I don&#x27;t understand why people do that to themselves.<p>gRPC also adds defined semantics for TCP connection length; with HTTP&#x2F;1.1, maybe you can reuse your connection, maybe you can&#x27;t, it depends.  You can&#x27;t have multiple requests in flight on the same connection, even if you can reuse it.  HTTP&#x2F;2 fixes this, but gRPC has first-class channels and behavior is well-understood for request&#x2F;response, streams, etc.<p>It is unfamiliar and not as easy to debug on the command-line as &quot;curl <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;api.example&#x2F;foo&quot;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;api.example&#x2F;foo&quot;</a>, but once you get up and running, easy things are easy and hard things are possible.<p>As for Kubernetes, I dunno, it hasn&#x27;t been bad for me.  I tend to use the managed offerings, so I don&#x27;t have to spare 5 machines for an etcd cluster &#x2F; masters, or maintain them.  I build a container and Kubernetes ensures that it runs forever.  If it dies, it&#x27;s restarted.  If more replicas are added, they start receiving traffic. 
 I can manage 100% of the configuration in Git, so if my cluster or cloud provider blows up, I can re-apply somewhere else and have a 99.9% chance of it all working within 15 minutes.  Before containers and k8s, production felt very much like a &quot;yolo&quot; thing to me.  Most of the world set up some VPSs, logged in, configured them, and prayed that everything would work well.  Your website went &quot;down for maintenance&quot; every time you did a release.  You needed to distribute root credentials, hoping that you could fully trust everyone on your team to not mess anything up.  It mostly worked, but through sheer brute force rather than any system working behind the scenes to make things run smoothly.  With k8s, you can delegate this tedium to software.  A developer can update a config file, have the PR approved, and software will ensure that the new version of the software starts, is assigned some load, and the old version is shut down.  It&#x27;s smooth, hard for someone to manually mess up, and quite productive.<p>I get that people have made their own ad-hoc orchestration and they like it.  I guess that&#x27;s OK.  What I like about k8s is that it&#x27;s a common language for this sort of thing -- I&#x27;ve used it for 3 projects, and they&#x27;ve all looked about the same.  I&#x27;ve never had to learn anything company-specific; I can just run my software.  I don&#x27;t think that&#x27;s a bad thing.<p>(The solid alternative to k8s, it seems, is just paying someone else to run everything but the one application that your company makes.  Can&#x27;t figure out how to run Prometheus?  Just buy a Datadog subscription.  Can&#x27;t figure out how to run a frontend proxy?  Just buy an Application Load Balancer.  Can&#x27;t figure out how to search and retain application logs?  Just buy a Splunk subscription.  Can&#x27;t figure out how to install MySQL?  Just buy it from your cloud provider.  That is all great, but you end up spending a lot of money because you can&#x27;t efficiently manage software and instead spend all your time writing rants about orchestration frameworks.  Sometimes I wonder.)<p>Whenever I see articles like this, I have to ask what the transition from &quot;big UNIX&quot; to Linux would have looked like on HN.  I am sure some people hated it, and I&#x27;m sure some of those people had good reasons.  But things got smoothed out and it turned out that Linux and its ecosystem was pretty good.  If you maintain a production application today, it probably runs on Linux, and that&#x27;s good because that&#x27;s one less thing you have to teach your team.  I kind of see k8s in the same place.  Lots of people have trouble running multiple pieces of software in production.  k8s is a common language for doing those things.  You can build it yourself or you can buy a managed service.  You can extend it to do the crazy things you need it to do.  It&#x27;s not a bad thing, and I think it&#x27;s pretty disingenuous to compare it to systemd.