This relates to something I've seen with product discussions, though if we think about IaC as a product for developers I guess it's the same discussion. Very of

This relates to something I've seen with product discussions, though if we think about IaC as a product for developers I guess it's the same discussion. Very often the developer/pm of a product wants to cover _every possible_ use case even if there's no user demand there yet. This can lead the user experience to be painful since you now basically need to be a power user to get started, and the developer experience starts to get painful as well since the code to support the everything machines is not simple. I worked on a project where the feature requirements became so convoluted I wanted to say let's just ship them a machine with a python interpreter on it and at least the docs will already be written. I was joking but there's something there in that we're either shipping an incomplete subsection of the capabilities of the tools we're using, or we're writing a 1:n mask from our tools to some new interface. New tools need to be compared to our BATNA (in this context maybe Best Alternative to Nothing at All?) to determine their value. I feel like this is why Heroku was so great when it came out. Yeah, you lose all this fine grained control (subset of the capabilities), but goddamn was it easy to just ship something. I feel like Excel is really the OG king of navigating this dilemma because the interface makes it easy to gradually go into the deep end. I honestly wish more dev tools were like that because we only have so much time in the day and most tools probably _do_ have an 80% happy path subset of features that could be foregrounded and made simpler, while still allowing access to the details when needed.