3 ms·

I think that's the point. You choose the best tech at the moment given the requirements with some headroom. Why waste engineering time to make sure it is harden

• cryptonector 9y ago
  Some changes can be extraordinarily difficult, so if you can foresee that you'll need, say, to make some code into a library, or thread-safe, or async, then it's best to make it that way from the get-go. Obviously there's a bit of YAGNI in tension here. But if you have the experience to write it correctly from the get-go at low additional cost, then it's worth doing that instead of risking a massive rewrite later.
  • marcosdumay 9y ago
    > to make some code into a library I have never had any problem with putting some code into a library after the software is done. It is almost always a 1-4 hours exercise, and when it's not, it's a 2 days task at most. Async code is also something that I have never seen it being a huge problem. Mostly because only a small part of your code needs to be async, most of it can stay synchronous, scheduled by the small async part. Thread safety is a real problem. One can indeed trade some of it for some development speed, and this can become a huge bottleneck later/soon.
• gowld 9y ago
  "10x" is large or small depending on the plausible variance you can expect. A free casual game? 10x spike is quite expected. a $1000/month B2B Saas? 10x comes with a lot of predictable lead time.