One of my least favorite patterns in software: "We don't have a field for $foo, but we have `bar` that no one is using for its intended purpose, so rather than adding a `foo` field we're going to put $foo in `bar`"You can find it all over software, and...

Hrefna (DHC)

One of my least favorite patterns in software:

"We don't have a field for $foo, but we have `bar` that no one is using for its intended purpose, so rather than adding a `foo` field we're going to put $foo in `bar`"

You can find it all over software, and particularly in databases, and I see it a LOT in #ActivityPub development -.-

? Offline

@hrefna use unions in case foo is actually needed again. We do this via a bit mask on the first byte. It’s not like the db column is needed for a where, and it’s just as fast in code

Hrefna (DHC)

@hexbatch Or, counterpoint, you can just do it correctly in the first place and not create confusion and additional complexity for everyone down the road.

Also, as I already said in my post, I'm not talking exclusively or even specifically about databases. At all. I mentioned ActivityPub by name.

I have no earthly idea what you are trying to accomplish here.

julian

@[email protected] In defense of ActivityPub (not that it needs defending, and not that I'm even remotely qualified, but I digress...) I feel part of the reason behind "let's co-opt this unused property" is because it was defined in the spec, so lends some vague hand-wavy credibility to your implementation if you use it, as opposed to you extending the spec in a non-standarsized way.

Also, just for kicks, I think a neat parallel is that SMS initially conceived and developed kind of like this:

GSM is optimized for telephony, since this was identified as its main application. The key idea for SMS was to use this telephone-optimized system, and to transport messages on the signalling paths needed to control the telephone traffic during periods when no signalling traffic existed. In this way, unused resources in the system could be used to transport messages at minimal cost.

julian

This key bit of info seemed pretty genius, but is by modern standards pretty hacky. Nevertheless, it's served us... okay? I guess?

I'm still a little mad that carriers used to charge for SMS messages, given that it's essentially free.