Re:AWS Amplify Is a Grift
by ctvo on Tuesday April 11, 2023 @10:19AM
(#35525546)
> I think its hard to draw a fine line on where this responsibility lies.
I don't disagree, but I think there's consensus on what we consider footguns and what we consider features. Default on security footguns (like unauthenticated access to S3 buckets) should be changed. AWS has changed this. Default on performance features that cost customers money, and may be unused? We should limit those.
> That single decision has reverberated to save tons of hours in compute time across all of their customers.
It's hard to make a statement like this without data. How many of those fields are wasted disk space on a server somewhere under utilized? How much compute does indexing cost on those under utilized fields that should have been omitted?
You make the trade-offs on if you use Firestore or DynamoDB. They're different products, with different features.
I don't disagree, but I think there's consensus on what we consider footguns and what we consider features. Default on security footguns (like unauthenticated access to S3 buckets) should be changed. AWS has changed this. Default on performance features that cost customers money, and may be unused? We should limit those.
> That single decision has reverberated to save tons of hours in compute time across all of their customers.
It's hard to make a statement like this without data. How many of those fields are wasted disk space on a server somewhere under utilized? How much compute does indexing cost on those under utilized fields that should have been omitted?
You make the trade-offs on if you use Firestore or DynamoDB. They're different products, with different features.