I say this having worked in the software business for coming on 15 years: I don't think an organization where business is calling the shots would be capable of building an Internet search engine.

The entire project a fractal of this type of business-inscrutable engineering, and in any organization where engineers aren't calling the shots, that engineering isn't going to get done, and the project is going to be hideously slow and expensive as a result.

In a parallel universe where I had gone the classic startup route and started out using the biggest off-the-shelf pieces I could find, gluing them together with python (instead of building a bespoke index); then thrown VC money at hardware at when it started struggling; even more when it struggled again; I'd be absolutely dumbfounded when it yet again hit a brick wall and my hardware cost is tens of thousands every month (as opposed to $100/mo now).

Since I've instead built the solution from scratch, I've also built a deep understanding of both the domain and the solution, and when I'm faced with scaling problems, they're solvable in software rather than hardware. I can just change how the software works until it does. It's a slower route, but it's also able to take you places where conventional-wisdom-driven-development does not.

Congratulations on your latest steps forward. We empathise. Resourcefulness, the ultimate asset which sparks creativity.

> We sometimes get trapped in this belief that any form of performance improvement somehow costs us something

But it does always cost you something. Developer time isn't free, after all.

If we only cared about performance, we would be handwriting SIMD intrinsics for baremetal applications. But we don't, because it is easily worth a 20% performance penalty to write code in a modern programming language. We're willing to trade 10% performance for a well-tested framework and library ecosystem which greatly reduces development time. Nobody cares how efficient your application is when it never ships.

Even "bloated" and "slow" do not always mean the same thing. Just look at something like database indexes: they take up space (bloated), but make your application faster. Often that's a worthwhile tradeoff, but creating indexes for literally everything isn't a good idea either. It is all about finding the right balance.

I do agree that a lot of user-facing applications have gone way too far, though. Even completely trivial Android apps are 150MB+ binaries these days, and the widespread use of memory-hogging Electron tools is a bit worrying. When your app runs on millions of devices, you should care about resource usage!

> We're willing to trade 10% performance for a well-tested framework and library ecosystem which greatly reduces development time. Nobody cares how efficient your application is when it never ships.

I think this is the sticking point. People assert without any real evidence that whatever framework greatly reduces development time, and if that were the tradeoff, it might make sense. e.g. Rails and Laravel bill themselves this way.

Meanwhile, I've found that a more barebones framework in Scala is more productive to develop with, and also gets at least 100x the performance (e.g. a request rate in the 10s of thousands/second is easy to do on laptop hardware), which also makes it operationally easier since now you don't need a giant cluster.

> But it does always cost you something. Developer time isn't free, after all.

According to the rest of the comment we seem to largely agree. But this statement is what I want to challenge a bit.

Basically it comes down to this: We're doing plenty of unnecessary stuff all the time, especially in business IT (web applications, CRUD, CRM, CMS, reporting etc.) software.

Your Electron example points to the right direction, but there are also a lot of practices regarding code organization (patterns, paradigms), being too liberal with pulling down dependencies, framework bloat etc.

Simply getting rid of things that we don't need and thinking about performance in very rough terms gets us _both_ better performance and minimal code. I would wager that this isn't a tradeoff as in you describe. We might, especially in the mid-long term, actually gain developer time.

This often means thinking about DB access patterns, indexing and so on as you mentioned. Meaning we think in SQL and lean on the capabilities and heuristics of our DB. What does the DB actually need to do when I do these queries? How can I model the data in a way that gives me just enough flexibility with reasonable performance? Which parts of the system needs to know what? How does the data need to flow through it?

All that stuff we sometimes put on top (ORMs, OO patterns etc.) can get in the way of that. Does it really make us more productive to put these abstractions on top? Do we gain anything from doing these OO incantations?

The article in question is a really good example of removing complexity and drastically increasing performance at the same time.

I have a good example as well.

Our internal image optimization module that we use to generate differently sized images and formats in order to accommodate browser capabilities and screen sizes, was getting noticeably slow, especially for e-commerce related sites and brochures that typically feature a gallery per product/service.

Long story short: It got 50-60x faster simply by removing a convenience layer, writing SQL directly, processing the images in grouped batches and so on. AKA all just low hanging fruit. The end result is also simpler. It took work/time but it didn't need to be that slow in the first place.

And we are our own users too! We have to maintain, extend, test our code. Faster code gives us faster iteration cycles. Fast feedback loops lead to much higher productivity and flow.

The "no free lunch" fallacy is pervasive, but it's quote obviously false. Lots and lots of things are free.

Things normally don't exist in an optimum state where you must necessarily lose one thing to gain another.