And this is the architecture as designed and recommended by the KX consultants that you end up having to hire to “scale”
I think this hits on one of the major shortcomings of how FD/Kx have managed the technology going back 15+ years, IMHO.
Historically it’s the consultants that brought in a lot of income, with each one building ad-hoc solutions for their clients and solving much more complicated enterprise-scale integration and resilience challenges. FD/Kx failed to identify the massive opportunity here, which was to truly invest in R&D and develop a set of common IP, based on robust architectures, libraries and solutions around the core kdb+ product that would be vastly more valuable and appealing to more customers. This could have led to a path where open sourcing kdb+ made sense, if they had a suite of valuable, complementary functionality that they could sell. But instead, they parked their consultants for countless billable hours at their biggest paying customer’s sites and helped them build custom infra around kdb+, reinventing wheels over and over again.
They were in a unique position for decades, with a front row seat to the pain points and challenges of top financial institutions, and somehow never produced a product that came close to the value and utility of kdb+, even though clearly it was only ever going to be a part of a larger software solution.
In fairness they produced the delta suite, but its focus and feature set seemed to be constantly in flux and underwhelming, trying to bury and hide kdb+ behind frustratingly pointless UI layers. The more recent attempts with Kx.ai I’m less familiar with, but seem to be a desperate marketing attempt to latch onto the next tech wave.
They have had some very talented technical staff over the years, including many of their consultants. I just think that if the leadership had embraced the core technology and understood the opportunity to build a valuable ecosystem, with a goal towards FOSS, things could look very different. All hindsight of course :)
Historically it’s the consultants that brought in a lot of income, with each one building ad-hoc solutions for their clients and solving much more complicated enterprise-scale integration and resilience challenges. FD/Kx failed to identify the massive opportunity here, which was to truly invest in R&D and develop a set of common IP, based on robust architectures, libraries and solutions around the core kdb+ product that would be vastly more valuable and appealing to more customers. This could have led to a path where open sourcing kdb+ made sense, if they had a suite of valuable, complementary functionality that they could sell. But instead, they parked their consultants for countless billable hours at their biggest paying customer’s sites and helped them build custom infra around kdb+, reinventing wheels over and over again.
They were in a unique position for decades, with a front row seat to the pain points and challenges of top financial institutions, and somehow never produced a product that came close to the value and utility of kdb+, even though clearly it was only ever going to be a part of a larger software solution.
In fairness they produced the delta suite, but its focus and feature set seemed to be constantly in flux and underwhelming, trying to bury and hide kdb+ behind frustratingly pointless UI layers. The more recent attempts with Kx.ai I’m less familiar with, but seem to be a desperate marketing attempt to latch onto the next tech wave.
They have had some very talented technical staff over the years, including many of their consultants. I just think that if the leadership had embraced the core technology and understood the opportunity to build a valuable ecosystem, with a goal towards FOSS, things could look very different. All hindsight of course :)
Maybe it’s not too late to try that…