Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Is Shuttering the Parse Developer Platform (cio.com)
itwbennett writes: In a blog post yesterday, Facebook announced it is shutting down the Parse developer platform as of Jan. 28, 2017, giving developers a year to move off its hosted services. This comes as a bit of a surprise, considering that just last month, Parse launched a set of new tools to help developers work with Apple's watchOS and tvOS last, and at the time, Parse Product Manager Supratik Lahiri promised more updates in the future. Developers who don't want to rewrite their applications to work with a new back-end service provider can follow a migration guide from Parse to make their applications work with an independent MongoDB instance and a new open-source Parse Server that's running on Salesforce-owned developer platform provider Heroku.
... another web API bites the bullet and all the kids will have to go learn yet another flash in the pan interface to connect to some moronic social site to scrape bullshit data to pass to an app they can sell to idiots.
you might care, if only we had https://www.google.com/search?...">ever heard of Parse. At this point it seems pointless to go
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This is why you should avoid corporate controlled APIs and languages. Things like Rust, etc can just get pulled away at the last moment, leaving you without any future path and support. Lesson learned.
This is the technological equivalent of obsessing over some Kardashion boob job.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Looks like another crappy butt^H^H^H^Hcloud service. Why should it be named "Parse"?
If you can't write a parser and you literally need one in the "clouds", you've failed CS 101.
I find it very interesting that you mention Rust! Although it's a programming language, you're absolutely right, it could very well put its users in the same awful situation that Parse's users now find themselves in.
Rust is a product of Mozilla, which as we know has had some tough times lately. They lost their Google sponsorship, and have had to settle for Yahoo instead. Users are fleeing Firefox left and right, and Firefox is pretty much the only product of Mozilla's that still has some users. Firefox now likely has a market share within the single-digit percentages. Once its users are gone, Mozilla's influence will wane significantly. It does not help that pretty much all of their other products have either been put on ice (Thunderbird), are considered obsolete (Bugzilla), have failed (Persona, Firefox OS), or are making little progress (Servo).
Some will claim that Rust is an "open source project", but I'm not convinced that's true. Rather, I think it's a Mozilla project with source code that's publicly available. Maybe they'll take contributions from outsiders, but it's people from Mozilla calling the shots and controlling the project. If it weren't for Mozilla pushing it forward, I don't think we'd see much real progress at all.
It does not help that many in the Rust community, including some prominent members, are former Ruby on Railers who fled that community when the hype started to die down after people realized how problematic Ruby and Ruby on Rails can be. If these people fled the Ruby community so quickly, what's to say they won't do the same to Rust when its hype disappears? We're already seeing the Rust hype start to die down, now that 1.0 was finally released (after many delays), and users are finding out that it isn't as useful as it's claimed it was.
Then there are the issues of Rust having only a single implementation, with no others on the horizon. There's also the issue of Rust libraries having a tendency to go unmaintained after the sole contributor loses interest and abandons the project. Many Rust libraries are just shitty weekend project code dumps to GitHub, so it's not like they were ever even real projects in any sense to start with.
It just makes so much more sense to go with C++ than it does to use Rust. C++14, and the upcoming C++17, have revolutionized the language. They give just about the same degree of safety as Rust, but without all of the problems of Rust. Best of all, there are multiple independent implementations from separate vendors, so even if say the GCC project were to fail, there would still be Clang and several proprietary implementations to choose from.
Rust sounds good on the surface, but it leaves me very uneasy. I don't think it's worth considering until there are multiple production-grade implementations of it. Even then, we need to see its community mature, and the library situation vastly improve. That will take many years to happen, at which point we'll likely see C++ offering all of the functionality that Rust offers, plus many other benefits, all coming from a mature and reliable community with a diverse set of players.
C++ is the future. Rust is not.
I was forced (by a "hip" development director) to try and implement a simple small web application using Facebook's "React" javascript library, and after toiling for three days with it I decided that the only thing you can easily implement with React is something that looks and acts just like Facebook, not surprisingly. I abandoned it and created the site framework-less in four hours. I have no idea what "Parse" is, but I am very wary of these corporate frameworks/APIs/languages since that experience.
Go look at some "hip" github projects out there, it's ridiculous - there are literally 10's of thousands of lines of framework supporting these tiny little applications, it's absurd. There are even massive projects out there to make integration between two frameworks "easier", which themselves rely on any number of other unrelated frameworks. Where does it all end??
while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
Person: Who are you sir?
Shutterer: I am the shutterer
Person: What do you do?
Shutterer: I shutter
We'll make great pets
Rust is a product of Mozilla, which as we know has had some tough times lately. They lost their Google sponsorship, and have had to settle for Yahoo instead.
Wrong, wrong, wrong... Moziila chose Yahoo over Google, presumably the deal was better. And looking at it form the standpoint of the Mozilla mission it might just enable more competition on the search market.
Rather, I think it's a Mozilla project with source code that's publicly available.
Nope, even the Mozilla people working on this is very attentive to make sure they aren't tried too much to Mozilla infrastructure.
So I wouldn't worry about this.
My only concern with rust is that it's too complicated and encourages too much over-engineering.. Maybe I just haven't really gotten good at writing it yet. But that is definitely my major concern.
Parse is hugely useful as a way to "assume" a back end. Any good NoSQL database does most of the association work during the write task; in this case on mobile client. With a few housekeeping tasks running on the parse server you can actually make a clean, fast, scalable service but obviously it's also great for prototyping. I think Facebook dropped Parse because they are not one of the big four making $$ in the cloud and Parse is a SaaS; it runs great on Google cloud.
What do you call it when the first time you hear about a project is the shut-down announcement? Also, does nobody consider how difficult it is to search for information on their project? If you google "parse" you're going to get a lot of CS tutorials and papers about parsing, as well you should.
And nothing of value was lost.