4 ms·
I usually find that "interesting" architectures scale even worse, at least for the 99% of projects and organizations that'd never actually outgrow the "boring"
by yamtaddle 4y ago
I usually find that "interesting" architectures scale even worse, at least for the 99% of projects and organizations that'd never actually outgrow the "boring" solution. All the pain of the big fancy solution, but without the actual need that makes it truly better than the alternative.
... of course, the best-paying jobs are at the places that really do need that scale, so of course we all want an excuse to play with those tools, even when it's not the right business choice. And it's not as if software folks are the only ones with a principal-agent problem, in business. Oh well.
- notjoemama 4y agoI'm with you. I understand the critique, but experience has shown me "boring" is more maintainable, and at some point even "clever" tools stop being worth the effort. Besides, eventually scale pushes tech to roll their own, or rewrite/augment tools. I dislike using boring as a measure of sufficiency. It makes me wonder if those drawn to the clever solutions carry a "I know better than you" perspective, the kind of dogmatic optimism that tanked SVB.