▲ | jorangreef 9 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
Joran from TigerBeetle here! We didn't design our docs because it was "a fun thing" (as suggested) but rather because we simply care deeply about the experience of developers reading our docs. For example, concerning performance and offline use, which were further reasons we gave in the post. We have a high bar for taking on dependencies. We don't take on dependencies automatically without justification. It's just not a philosophy that we share, to assume or to insist that everything needs to be a dependency. (The discussion on CSP in our post was also not given as motivation, but as an example of the thought process that went into this. Again, as per the post, it's a matter of defense-in-depth. We have plans for how our docs will be used in future, that you may not be aware of, and security is important.) Finally, we're happy with the result, the project was small and didn't take long. We're used to "painting" things like this fairly quickly. It's just easier for us than trying to "sculpt" off the shelf dependencies. That's not to suggest that everyone needs to paint like we do at TigerBeetle, but it's equally true that not everyone needs to sculpt either. [1] [1] To understand our engineering methodology, and why we prefer to paint than sculpt, see TigerStyle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3WYdYyjek4 | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | mtlynch 9 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Hi Joran, thanks for your response! For context, I like TigerBeetle, and I respect the team. I'm not trying to take cheap shots but rather to disagree respectfully. >We didn't design our docs because it was "a fun thing" (as suggested) but rather because we simply care deeply about the experience of developers reading our docs. For example, concerning performance and offline use, which were further reasons we gave in the post. To me, this still sounds like "for fun." The blog post just talks about performance and offline use, but "maximize performance" isn't a real goal. You can invest ininite hours improving performance, so it comes down to how many engineering hours you're willing to trade in exchange for improving some set of performance metrics. Maybe the issue is that the blog post doesn't present the decision making process well? Because the critical questions I don't see addressed are: - What were the performance metrics that were critical to achieve? - What alternative solutions were considered beyond Docusaurus? - How do the alternatives perform on the critical metrics? - How does the home-rolled solution perform on TigerBeetle's critical metrics? In the absence of those considerations, it feels like the dominant factor is that it's more pleasant to work with greenfield, home-baked code than off-the-shelf code, even if the existing code could achieve the same thing in fewer engineering hours. | |||||||||||||||||
|