> and this additional proprietary thing that I really need to open source (I ported Datascript to FoundationDB).
Yes please! I wonder how that plays out as an alternative to Datomic.
Yes please! I wonder how that plays out as an alternative to Datomic.
I can't make a judgement call on whether they're over or under engineered, but it's good to pick which one you would rather be, write that into your engineering team's DNA, and then learn to work with it.
over engineering is anticipating for future requirements that aren't ever realized, or realized so far in the future that upfront cost outweighed the cost of putting it off for later. under engineering is not anticipating for future requirements that are realized before their cost outweighs the cost it would have taken to implement them upfront. somewhere there is a line, and on both sides you wasted money. if you perfectly engineered something, you spent the money optimally. in this industry, the idea you could perfect that is laughable. it's either over, or under engineered.
reading a blog post gives you fuck-all for insight into a project or team's actual budget and requirements. driving by and shouting "over engineered" is a very clear sign of lack of experience, and one of the most uninteresting things you can add to a conversation about a company _literally starting their own bank from nothing_.
so, OP, how would you under engineer your bank?
calling something over engineering reduces the problem to black and white thinking, which is incredibly uninteresting. let's not do that!
wow, I guess we agree, and you're still an asshole!
seems a bit like engineering for the sake of engineering
I'm all for it if it floats your boat, not sure that it's what I want from my bank though
sounds pretty cool, but was it really necessary...?
it's also not quite the same as using an off-the-shelf RDBMS, but they do a pretty good job of explaining why they made that design choice.
if anything, viewed through that lens, I'd say it seems quite pragmatic.