I've been (unsuccessfully) trying to coin the phrase "Design for deletion."
The code in front of you works today, but will become unfit for purpose and un-salvageable, and we want to ensure that when that inevitable end happens, there is a sane and safe way to systematically chop it out and replace it with something you can't predict.
There's substantial overlap with general principles like loose-coupling and modularity, but the framing changes how people apply them: Instead of trying to create Amazing-Thing which will be used for many years by people amazed at your foresight making it "flexible" and "modular" and "customizable", you focus on creating Nobody-Curses-It-Thing which can be easily killed off, or dismantled for useful parts.
I found an excellent way to avoid premature abstraction and optimization and to write better software in general was to explicitly consider v1.x a throw-away.
Build something expedient that works well enough to deploy in the field, get actual user feedback and system metrics (e.g., where are the actual bottlenecks). Do a few iterations on user feedback and system metrics. NOW, you are much further down the road to a true final spec, and you can use that real information to design the real system to scale up on.
One Test Is Worth A Thousand Opinions.
This plan first tests your ideas against the real world of users, hardware, and data flows, and keeps a lot of technical debt out of the scaling system.
I discovered it a bit by accident, having previously been really big on early abstraction and planning, but sort of having to do this in one startup, and it was a real eye-opener how well it worked.
I've been (unsuccessfully) trying to coin the phrase "Design for deletion."
The code in front of you works today, but will become unfit for purpose and un-salvageable, and we want to ensure that when that inevitable end happens, there is a sane and safe way to systematically chop it out and replace it with something you can't predict.
There's substantial overlap with general principles like loose-coupling and modularity, but the framing changes how people apply them: Instead of trying to create Amazing-Thing which will be used for many years by people amazed at your foresight making it "flexible" and "modular" and "customizable", you focus on creating Nobody-Curses-It-Thing which can be easily killed off, or dismantled for useful parts.
Love this framing, thank you.
Law of disposable infrastructure: The more temporary a fix is intended to be, the more likely it is to become load-bearing permanent infrastructure
Exactly THIS!
I found an excellent way to avoid premature abstraction and optimization and to write better software in general was to explicitly consider v1.x a throw-away.
Build something expedient that works well enough to deploy in the field, get actual user feedback and system metrics (e.g., where are the actual bottlenecks). Do a few iterations on user feedback and system metrics. NOW, you are much further down the road to a true final spec, and you can use that real information to design the real system to scale up on.
One Test Is Worth A Thousand Opinions.
This plan first tests your ideas against the real world of users, hardware, and data flows, and keeps a lot of technical debt out of the scaling system.
I discovered it a bit by accident, having previously been really big on early abstraction and planning, but sort of having to do this in one startup, and it was a real eye-opener how well it worked.