Blog post about why your perfect architecture sucks

content/blog/your-perfect-infrastructure-sucks/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+---
+title: "Your Perfect Infrastructure Sucks"
+date: 2024-12-11T10:43:07Z
+draft: false
+
+meta_desc: |
+    Building systems designed for easy change is more valuable than
+    attempting to create the perfect future-proof architecture.
+
+# The meta_image appears in social-media previews and on the blog home page. A
+# placeholder image representing the recommended format, dimensions and aspect
+# ratio has been provided for you.
+meta_image: meta.png
+
+# At least one author is required. The values in this list correspond with the
+# `id` properties of the team member files at /data/team/team. Create a file for
+# yourself if you don't already have one.
+authors:
+    - simen-a-w-olsen
+
+# At least one tag is required. Lowercase, hyphen-delimited is recommended.
+tags:
+    - architecture
+    - developer-first-infrastructure
+    - best-practices
+    - cloud-engineering
+    - cloud-deployment
+    - developer-experience-devex
+    - people-ops
+    - application-scalability
+
+
+# The social copy used to promote this post on Twitter and Linkedin. These
+# properties do not actually create the post and have no effect on the
+# generated blog page. They are here strictly for reference.
+
+# Here are some examples of posts we have made in the past for inspiration:
+# https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7171191945841561601
+# https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7169021002394296320
+# https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7155606616455737345
+# https://twitter.com/PulumiCorp/status/1763265391042654623
+# https://twitter.com/PulumiCorp/status/1762900472489185492
+# https://twitter.com/PulumiCorp/status/1755637618631405655
+
+social:
+    twitter: |
+        Perfect architecture is a myth. Simen's take: Make 👏 Change 👏 Cheap 👏
+        
+        Read this candid take on why designing for change beats trying to
+        predict the future - and why your over-engineered system might be holding you back.
+    linkedin: |
+        "I was basically the Leonardo da Vinci of system design... if
+        Leonardo had been really into Kubernetes and had a concerning
+        addiction to coffee." @Simen A. W. Olsen shares how his
+        "future-proof" architecture became a constraint rather
+        than an enabler, and why trying to predict every future need
+        is like bringing a fully packed suitcase to a first date.
+
+
+# See the blogging docs at https://github.com/pulumi/docs/blob/master/BLOGGING.md
+# for details, and please remove these comments before submitting for review.
+---
+
+I remember standing in front of our engineering team in 2018, proudly presenting what I believed was the future-proof architectural design for our new distributed system. The diagrams were immaculate, the technology choices were cutting-edge, and the scalability patterns were ready for any possible future scenario.
+
+I was basically the Leonardo da Vinci of system design… if Leonardo had been really into Kubernetes and had a concerning addiction to coffee. Six months later, that “future-proof” architecture had become a constraint rather than an enabler, and my masterpiece was looking more like a finger painting done by a caffeinated raccoon.
+
+<!--more-->
+
+This experience taught me something crucial: trying to build the perfect system that anticipates every future need is often worse than creating a system designed to change quickly. It’s like trying to predict what your kid will want to be when they grow up and pre-buying all the necessary equipment. Congrats, you now own a space suit, a stethoscope, and a dragon costume — and they decided to become a software engineer anyway.
+
+## The Over-Planning
+
+Many teams fall into a common trap: they try to design systems that anticipate every possible future requirement. This happens even in agile teams, where we convince ourselves we need to “get the architecture right” before we can start iterating. You know, because nothing says “agile” like spending three months in a room drawing boxes and arrows while muttering “microservices” under your breath like it’s a magic spell.
+
+In 2008, Netflix faced a choice: build the perfect data center that could handle all their anticipated future needs, or move to the cloud with a simpler architecture that could evolve. They chose the latter, focusing on making their system easy to change rather than trying to make it perfect. Smart move — unlike those my past self made who probably would’ve insisted on building a data center capable of streaming to Mars, just in case Elon asked nicely.
+
+## The Core Principles of Change-Ready Architecture
+
+Through both failures and successes, I’ve identified three principles that define truly adaptable architecture:
+
+- **Embrace simplicity.** I think it makes sense to start with the simplest architecture that could possibly work for your current needs. Complexity should be earned, not presumed. If your architecture diagram looks like a plate of spaghetti that’s been hit by lightning, you might be doing it wrong.
+- **Make change cheap.** Instead of trying to avoid change, make it inexpensive. This means investing in automated testing, continuous deployment, and monitoring. When change is cheap, you don’t need to fear it.
+- **Learn through action.** Rather than trying to predict the future, build mechanisms that help you learn quickly about real needs. It includes feature toggles (Protip: Try [Unleash][unleash]. Pretty Chad software.), A/B testing, and robust monitoring of how your system is actually being used. You know, actual data, not just what that one loud guy in planning insists will definitely happen.
+
+[unleash]: https://www.getunleash.io/
+
+The rise of AI and machine learning systems has made one thing clear: we can’t predict how our systems will need to evolve. The most successful teams aren’t those that try to build the perfect AI architecture upfront, but those that can rapidly experiment and adapt their systems based on real-world feedback.
+
+The biggest pushback I hear is, “But what if we need to scale?” or “What about future requirements?” These fears often drive teams to over-architect their solutions. But here’s the reality: the cost of changing a simple system is usually lower than the cost of maintaining an over-engineered one. The key is understanding that good architecture isn’t about predicting the future — it’s about making future changes as painless as possible.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+That over-engineered system I was so proud of in 2018? Its most significant flaw wasn’t in what it got wrong about the future — it was that it tried too hard to be right about the future in the first place. It’s like bringing a fully packed suitcase to a first date. Today, I know that the best architecture isn’t one that anticipates every need, but one that makes it easy to respond to needs as they emerge.
+
+The next time you’re tempted to design for every possible future scenario, remember: the goal isn’t to build a perfect system, but to build one that’s perfectly easy to change. And if someone tells you they’ve designed the perfect future-proof architecture, they’re either lying, or they’ve discovered time travel — and in that case, they should be sharing lottery numbers, not system designs.