[tanilama]

> I think programmers tend to underestimate the difficulties involved with becoming a good programmer because once you're good, you only see the even steeper learning curve ahead of you.

But that is no definition of bubble. Bubble, at a very basic level, means there is a lot of capital flowing within, it has little to do with whether how difficult your job is.

[Pamar]

This is... debatable. I was around in 1985 and if I had proposed using "an eventually consistent schemaless DB" to tackle a bank or a manufacturing project I would have been laughed out of the room. And not because it sounded too good to be true, mind you...

[woolvalley]

Funny thing is, that is what ACH and many other banking systems are today, or at least back then. "Reconciliation" can take days.

[sedachv]

> I was around in 1985 and if I had proposed using "an eventually consistent schemaless DB" to tackle a bank or a manufacturing project I would have been laughed out of the room.

Medical record systems were running on MUMPS (schemaless) and being eventually consistent (records were keyed in from paper forms) long before 1985.

[ummonk]

Does anyone do that, at least on the software side? Obviously there are consistency issues with e.g. non-instantaneous bank teller actions, but those are human inconsistencies, not software inconsistencies..

[Pamar]

What I mean is that some of the powerful components we can leverage today solve problems that did not exist in 1985, so having these available then would not really help.

I mean: what would you use Node.js for - in 1985 - even assuming you had access to a system to develop and test stuff made with it?

[sedachv]

> I mean: what would you use Node.js for - in 1985

In 1985, your hypothetical bank would be running VMS, which had asynchronous IO system calls as the default. There was no need to "invent" something like Node.js.