diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/values-comparison.org')
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/values-comparison.org | 107 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 107 deletions
diff --git a/docs/values-comparison.org b/docs/values-comparison.org deleted file mode 100644 index 128c6710..00000000 --- a/docs/values-comparison.org +++ /dev/null @@ -1,107 +0,0 @@ -#+TITLE: Values Comparison - Simple vs Reliability -#+DATE: 2025-10-30 - -* What Currently Supports Each Value - -| Theme/Practice | Simple | Reliability | -|---------------------------------------+--------+-------------| -| *Code Quality* | | | -| Clear naming | ✓ | | -| Small functions | ✓ | | -| Good comments (why not what) | ✓ | | -| Abstractions when warranted | ✓ | | -|---------------------------------------+--------+-------------| -| *Architecture* | | | -| Modular design | ✓ | | -| Extract custom code into packages | ✓ | | -| Good architecture enables evolution | ✓ | | -| Technical debt has real cost | ✓ | | -|---------------------------------------+--------+-------------| -| *Production Practices* | | | -| Testing | ✓ | ✓ | -| Documentation | ✓ | | -| Version control | ✓ | | -|---------------------------------------+--------+-------------| -| *Failure Planning* | | | -| Rollback capability (localrepo) | ✓ | ✓ | -| Error handling | ✓ | ✓ | -| Graceful degradation | ✓ | ✓ | -|---------------------------------------+--------+-------------| -| *Trust & Stability* | | | -| Never use tools you can't trust | ✓ | ✓ | -| Uptime matters | | ✓ | -| Config breakage crushes productivity | | ✓ | -| More packages = more breakage risk | | ✓ | -| Need confidence to refactor | | ✓ | -|---------------------------------------+--------+-------------| - -* Key Quotes Supporting Each - -** Simple -- "Config IS production software - treat it as such" -- "Clear naming, small functions, good comments" -- "Apply production practices: Testing, modularity, documentation" -- "Simple means maintainable production software, not minimal or primitive" - -** Reliability/Resilience -- "Never use a tool you can't fully trust" -- "The impact when it's broken can crush my productivity" -- "More packages = more potential breakage. Need ability to roll back" -- "Plan for failure: Rollback capability, error handling, graceful degradation" -- "Quality matters because uptime matters" - -* Analysis - -** If Reliability is part of Simple: -*Simple means:* Maintainable, trustworthy, production-quality code that fails gracefully - -*Pros:* -- Keeps to 3 values -- Failure planning is a consequence of good engineering (already in Simple) -- Less redundancy - -*Cons:* -- "Simple" might not clearly convey the "must not break" urgency -- Rollback/resilience themes could get lost - -** If Reliability is its own value: -*Simple means:* Clear, maintainable code -*Reliability means:* Never breaks, fails gracefully, always recoverable - -*Pros:* -- Explicit focus on uptime/stability -- Clear that this is mission-critical (crushes productivity when broken) -- Resilience practices (localrepo, testing, error handling) have clear home - -*Cons:* -- 4 values instead of 3 -- Some overlap with Simple - -* Decision Framework - -Ask yourself: - -1. When choosing between two approaches, would "reliability" change your decision differently than "simple"? - - Example: Complex caching solution that's faster but harder to debug - - Simple says: "Too complex, harder to maintain" - - Reliability says: "If it breaks less often and has rollback, worth the complexity" - -2. Does "config can't break" deserve equal weight with Fast and Intuitive? - -3. Is the "trust" theme strong enough to be its own value? - -* Recommendation - -If you had to choose, I'd suggest: **Keep Simple, absorb Reliability into it.** - -Why? Most of your reliability practices (testing, rollback, error handling) are already listed under "production software practices" in Simple. The "never use tools you can't trust" is already there too. - -**But** - you could rename Simple to "**Reliable**" or "**Solid**" if the stability theme is more important than the simplicity theme. - -Alternative value names that might capture both: -- *Solid* - Stable, maintainable, trustworthy -- *Resilient* - Fails gracefully, recovers easily, maintainable -- *Dependable* - Simple enough to trust, robust enough to rely on - -What resonates? |