Amit,

I've written that piece too, but I haven't published it yet.

Thanks,

Jesse

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 3:38 PM Amit Sela <[email protected]> wrote:

> Great writing Jesse!
>
> From my experience in the last year, working on a stream processing (and
> generally data processing) platform at PayPal, Beam could also offer a
> great approach for large projects - up until now (and in my case as well),
> the process was:
>
>    1. Research and paper analysis of existing frameworks.
>    2. Understand your needs.
>    3. Choose (and commit to) a specific technology - example: Spark.
>    4. Get to work..
>
> I believe Beam could change this into something better, such as:
>
>    1. Understand your needs, and start working on them.
>    2. Combine your research with actually running (your) same code on
>    different frameworks - probably better then "WordCount" benchmarks.
>    3. Choose the best framework for you, or choose more than one if the
>    benefit is worth the overhead.
>    4. While working on 2 & 3, you keep going forward with your project!
>
> I talked about Beam in Barclays-Techstars Accelerator in Israel last month
> because I totally agree that it's a great starting point for startups, but
> I think this is an example why not just startups :)
>
> Thanks,
> Amit
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:58 AM Jesse Anderson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I wrote a piece published on O'Reilly about Beam
> >
> >
> https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/future-proof-and-scale-proof-your-code?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=lgen&utm_content=data+article+ki&cmp=tw-data-na-article-lgen_tw_article
> > .
> > It gives some of the thoughts and ideas that will help Beam adoption. I
> > suggest reading it to get some ideas for how to talk about Beam at talks
> > and conferences.
> >
> > Before writing the piece, I tested how it resonates with people. These
> > really help people understand why Beam is used and how it solves the
> future
> > proofing and scale proofing problems small companies face.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jesse
> >
>

Reply via email to