3 ms·
Interesting. I also think a lot of complexity stems from developers preferring building systems over building products. It is much more satisfying to build some
by patapong 1y ago
Interesting. I also think a lot of complexity stems from developers preferring building systems over building products. It is much more satisfying to build somehting that can address many use-cases, even if we are only working on a single use-case. But, this also introduces the cost of complexity as the user/downstream developer is pushed into making the choice of which of the many available paths they want to take.
See the eternal urge of gamedevs to build engines instead of building the game.
- brookst 1y agoYep — and it’s hard to argue against. Option value is valuable. Is it worth spending 20% more and de-optimizing for the core use case to support unknown future use cases? I’m not sure there’s a general purpose answer. And if you do stick to purpose-specific design and management asks for a seemingly minor expansion of scope, the “this is a small change, why did we make the system so rigid that it’s expensive to update?” is an uncomfortable conversation.
- pan69 1y agoExperienced developers understand the start-up cost associated with building a software product. So, when developers think ahead and architect and design their software for a possible future roadmap and that roadmap doesn't eventuate, they have introduced accidental complexity and they are considered idiots.