I'm doing this at LLM speed now.
I feel like I'm doing the work of two whole teams and designing rock-solid software.
Rust, strong types, enums, fantastic interfaces, brevity.
That's not what suitable data structures/algorithms mean. What you stated are mere helpers and still pertains to the realms of coding, not design.
Coding isn't and never was the issue. It is a tool and not the intent. Think about what would stand universally true whether you use Go, C, JavaScript, Assembly,... The organization of data (information), and the process of transforming it (computation).
Those do not depends on code. We already have basic ones like the list, the map, the stack, the queue, the binary tree, the graphs,... But for any business domain, you can create more specific ones. And like the basic one, they do not depends on code. The code depends on them.
So writing code faster does not make the design better.
If you have a bad design that's had contact with reality for a while, it's much easier to make it actually good, rather than figure stuff out up front (I've rarely made this work, even though I'd love to).
The mistake here is trying to come up with the most elegant design. You solve for what’s needed with the knowledge that you’ve most likely not captured the full situation, and make allowance for future changes.
I don’t want faster code. What I want is flexibility in evolving my design and there’s plenty of good tools and practices for that. From ensuring your code is testable to ensuring there are easy ways to experiment with parts of it.
I’ve never been in a situation that says “We’ve not think of that, we need to get back to the drawing board”, It’s been mostly “We need a new version of this module to support this feature”
And you're somehow able to post on HN from within the time crystal?