upvote
Since when we accepted that we can’t go fast and offer stability at the same time?

Time is highly correlated with expertise. When you don’t have expertise, you may go fast at expense of stability because you lack the experience to make good decisions to really save speed. This doesn’t hold true for any projects where you rely on experts, good processes and tight timelines (aka: Apollo mission)

reply
IME there's a reason it's "move fast and break things" and not "move fast and don't break anything," because if the second was generally possible, we wouldn't even need this little aphorism.

And again, I'm not making a claim that the slow and steady tradeoff is best for all situations. Just that it is a great tradeoff for foundational platforms like a runtime. On a platform like postgresql or the JVM, the time from initial proposal to being released as a stable feature is generally years, and this pace I think has served those platforms well.

But I'm open to updating my priors. Do you think there are foundational platforms out there that iterate quickly and do a good job of it?

reply
it’s a well known true-ism you can have it cheap, correct or fast.

but you can only have two of them at the same time.

and we’re talking about FOSS here, so cheap kinda has to be one of them.

reply