[dankohn1]

This is superb. YAGNI may have it's own Wikipedia entry, but that doesn't mean that we remember it when a brilliant idea comes to mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it

[senatorobama]

All hail YAGNI, the god of code.

[fiddlerwoaroof]

I find that YAGNI is usually used to justify hacking something together without thinking about the design of the system you’re working on.

[syllogism]

Yagni is a duality though (like a trinity, but two). You've just met Yagni's other face, You Are Going To Need It.

[TylerE]

An important corollary to this is "0, 1, many".

Any time you are storing data, the acceptable number of items to handle are none, exactly one, or a number limited only by machine resources. Don't design a container to hold, say, up to 5 items.

[0xcde4c3db]

On the other hand, instantiating/specializing a container to hold up to 5 items can be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, depending on the application. It might be a design requirement that a safety-critical program never has to restart due to heap fragmentation, for instance.

[always_good]

I don't understand. I would just about never want to use an unbounded buffer, for example, for a channel.

[ComputerGuru]

Yes but that is an artificial limit and not an architectural limitation. i.e. a feature added to code that was once / would have been infinite otherwise.

[newfoundglory]

You sound lucky, not to have tried arguing someone down from building a platform that would be able to implement both the system you're working on and any related hypothetical future systems as well.

[nurettin]

In the beginning, KISS and YAGNI created DRY, but it was corrupted and gave birth to DIY and NIH.