4 ms·

The first point is one that resonates strongly with me. Counter-intuitivly, the first instinct of a programmer should be "buy that, don't write it" Of course,

The first point is one that resonates strongly with me. Counter-intuitivly, the first instinct of a programmer should be "buy that, don't write it" Of course, as a programmer, this is by far not my first instinct. I am a programmer, my function is programming, not purchasing. Of course buying something is always cheaper (compared to the cost of my time) and will be orders of magnitude cheaper once the costs to maintain written-by-me code is added in. Things that are bought -tend- to last longer too. If I leave my job I leave behind a bunch of custom code nobody wants to work on. If I leave Redis behind, well, the next guy just carries on running Redis. I know all this. I advocate for all this. But I'm a programmer, send coders gotta code:) do it's not like we buy everything, I'm still there, still writing. Hopefully though my emphasis is on adding value. Build things that others will take over one-day. Keep designs clean, and code cleaner. And if I add one 'practice' to the list; Don't Be Clever. Clever code is hard to read, hard to understand, hard to maintain. Keep all code as simple as it can be. Reliable software is software that mostly isn't trying to be too clever.

aitchnyu 2y ago
This topic deserves an article on its own. I feel my team crossed "the line" on a SaaS that hosts docs from our Openapi and page doesnt even refresh safely. But how do we define the line?
- kqr 2y ago
  The line is where the cost of building is less than that of buying. It sounds like in your case building would have been cheaper, given the simplicity of the problem and the quality issues with the purchased solution. It does get difficult in more complicated cases thanks to a lack of information on what a good solution looks like. This article attempts to straighten it out a little: https://entropicthoughts.com/build-vs-buy https://entropicthoughts.com/build-vs-buy
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    > The line is where the cost of building is less than that of buying. Yes, once you factor in transaction costs, integration costs, risks contamination from that 3rd party, risks from lack of value alignment with that 3rd party (remember the Unity game engine?)... Or, in other words, people that say that phrase you said very often don't know the actual cost of buying. But well, nobody knows the actual cost of building before they try either.
  - zemvpferreira 2y ago
    I would personally replace 'cost of building' with 'cost of maintaining', but otherwise agree with your reasoning. It's worth building in a factor of safety, such that I would formulate this idea as: Only build software if the cost of maintaining it is 1/3 or less than the cost of buying a license. (this has the nice second-order effect of being more robust to errors in the maintenance estimate, hence making it quicker to estimate).
eikenberry 2y ago
> Counter-intuitivly, the first instinct of a programmer should be "buy that, don't write it" I don't think this is counter intuitive at all... this is the whole premise behind free software. Why write it yourself when someone else already has and there is a community around using and updating it. We all buy the vast majority of our software and it is usually our go to move, unless there is an itch.
- bruce511 2y ago
  In the context of you, at home, wanting to get stuff done, I agree. But in the context of "you're at work paid to be a programmer" the instinct is to look for things to program.
VyseofArcadia 2y ago
I'm not sure I 100% agree. I've been thinking a lot lately about the cost of off-the-shelf solutions from the perspective of sustainability, and there is a cost beyond money. The performance of software almost always degrades over time. By buying Foo off-the-shelf, you are saying, "I am ok with getting on the same bloat-dictated hardware upgrade cycle as Foo." Of course you have the option of buying Foo and never upgrading, unless Foo has a license that forces you to. But that also walls you off from security bugfixes. But by replicating the essential features of Foo in-house, you can actually set and stick to a complexity and performance budget. Of course if you are a business of any real size, you're already on the hardware upgrade treadmill anyway, and probably all of your customers are too, so what does it matter if your software is a little slower and a little more resource hungry year after year after year? Other than maybe a little twinge of guilt every now and then.
- bruce511 2y ago
  Certainly nothing is free (not even Free Software.) So there will surely be times when building is better than buying. I suppose the key is to understand the hidden costs with both approaches. The salary vs subscription cost is part of it, but there also subtle things, like flexibility (or lack thereof in bought systems), security (or lack thereof in homegrown systems) and so on.

aitchnyu 2y ago

This topic deserves an article on its own. I feel my team crossed "the line" on a SaaS that hosts docs from our Openapi and page doesnt even refresh safely. But how do we define the line?

kqr 2y ago
The line is where the cost of building is less than that of buying. It sounds like in your case building would have been cheaper, given the simplicity of the problem and the quality issues with the purchased solution. It does get difficult in more complicated cases thanks to a lack of information on what a good solution looks like. This article attempts to straighten it out a little: https://entropicthoughts.com/build-vs-buy https://entropicthoughts.com/build-vs-buy
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  > The line is where the cost of building is less than that of buying. Yes, once you factor in transaction costs, integration costs, risks contamination from that 3rd party, risks from lack of value alignment with that 3rd party (remember the Unity game engine?)... Or, in other words, people that say that phrase you said very often don't know the actual cost of buying. But well, nobody knows the actual cost of building before they try either.
- zemvpferreira 2y ago
  I would personally replace 'cost of building' with 'cost of maintaining', but otherwise agree with your reasoning. It's worth building in a factor of safety, such that I would formulate this idea as: Only build software if the cost of maintaining it is 1/3 or less than the cost of buying a license. (this has the nice second-order effect of being more robust to errors in the maintenance estimate, hence making it quicker to estimate).

eikenberry 2y ago

> Counter-intuitivly, the first instinct of a programmer should be "buy that, don't write it" I don't think this is counter intuitive at all... this is the whole premise behind free software. Why write it yourself when someone else already has and there is a community around using and updating it. We all buy the vast majority of our software and it is usually our go to move, unless there is an itch.

bruce511 2y ago
In the context of you, at home, wanting to get stuff done, I agree. But in the context of "you're at work paid to be a programmer" the instinct is to look for things to program.

VyseofArcadia 2y ago

I'm not sure I 100% agree. I've been thinking a lot lately about the cost of off-the-shelf solutions from the perspective of sustainability, and there is a cost beyond money. The performance of software almost always degrades over time. By buying Foo off-the-shelf, you are saying, "I am ok with getting on the same bloat-dictated hardware upgrade cycle as Foo." Of course you have the option of buying Foo and never upgrading, unless Foo has a license that forces you to. But that also walls you off from security bugfixes. But by replicating the essential features of Foo in-house, you can actually set and stick to a complexity and performance budget. Of course if you are a business of any real size, you're already on the hardware upgrade treadmill anyway, and probably all of your customers are too, so what does it matter if your software is a little slower and a little more resource hungry year after year after year? Other than maybe a little twinge of guilt every now and then.

bruce511 2y ago
Certainly nothing is free (not even Free Software.) So there will surely be times when building is better than buying. I suppose the key is to understand the hidden costs with both approaches. The salary vs subscription cost is part of it, but there also subtle things, like flexibility (or lack thereof in bought systems), security (or lack thereof in homegrown systems) and so on.