(also work at aws) i think that spoiler alert is a little overgeneralized. first, there’s plenty of advances in those categories in the past 5 or so years (la

(also work at aws) i think that spoiler alert is a little overgeneralized. first, there’s plenty of advances in those categories in the past 5 or so years (lambda, fargate, qldb, a bunch more) that move the needle significantly on the versions of things that existed 10-15 years ago. we didn’t collectively get everything right by 2012, and i heartily endorse customers using things that take away operational complexity but are less “complete” compared to the lower level counterparts. second, you missed mentioning that circular dependencies is a very real reason for why cloud vendor service teams can’t (not won’t) use services that would otherwise benefit them. this is a problem that is much less apparent to customers of clouds because, to them, the suite of services is provided as a single flat layer of options. i do agree that you want to make sure any service you use is “complete” for you, but that completeness can exist on a spectrum and sometimes getting onboard early and driving their roadmap can benefit you greatly. i also agree that you want to be conservative with how many services you do use, because each one without exception will become a learning experience.