Stevey's Google Platforms Rant¶
Yegge, S. (2011). Stevey's Google Platforms Rant.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Conway's Law
- Amazon's "two-pizza team" reorganization, which re-cut the organization into small autonomous teams with externally visible service contracts and let the service architecture emerge as the image of the new producer-graph, is the same structural maneuver as proposing a genuine EU regulator with primary competence so that a unified digital market can arise instead of an artifact carrying member-state seams at every interface.
This source(Resolves needs-source-783 and supports marker 785; widely-circulated insider account of the Bezos API mandate.)
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Yegge supports only that Amazon required externalizable service interfaces with no back-doors; the two-pizza reorganization and the EU-regulator analogy are not in this source.
“All service interfaces, without exception, must be designed from the ground up to be externalizable.”
- Amazon's "two-pizza team" reorganization, which re-cut the organization into small autonomous teams with externally visible service contracts and let the service architecture emerge as the image of the new producer-graph, is the same structural maneuver as proposing a genuine EU regulator with primary competence so that a unified digital market can arise instead of an artifact carrying member-state seams at every interface.
Domain-specific¶
- Single-Responsibility Principle
- The widely-reported internal mandate required teams to expose their functionality only through service interfaces
SupportedVerified against the source
- The widely-reported internal mandate required teams to expose their functionality only through service interfaces
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 1 supported, 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:9051d84c8584 · see in the full table