[emilsedgh]

It's not a matter of who's problem it is. It's just that a scale-able architecture in most cases is a premature optimization. When building a product, scalability is only one aspect. And in case of most startups and companies, amongst the smaller ones.

I personally interview a lot of people and if they start proposing microservices or k8s or anything trendy like that (before having context), I consider it a negative point.

When hiring, I want someone to take a look at a busines problem, break it down into a smaller pieces. Most of the times, the most important engineering work is coming up with the right data models/data structures.

So yeah, maybe the architecture I have now wont scale up. But at least it'll get the business going. Years later when there are more resources, the software could be rewritten or whatever.

Also, you'r example mentioned "software being hacked". I never said undermine security. Security should always be taken seriously. Security is not a premature optimization. Scalability is.

[webmaven]

> Security is not a premature optimization

There are plenty of situations where decent security is a premature optimization too. For example prototypes or proofs-of-concept that are only intended to demonstrate or benchmark a capability. The sort of thing where, even if you did insist on making it 'secure' the username/password would be admin/admin.

[YZF]

I wasn't commenting on whether scalability is important or not. I was commenting on that mindset: "When that matters, I won't even be managing the person whose problem that is."

What you said all sounds reasonable. Sure, don't build something scalable if you've figured out you want something quick to prove your market and you're ok with tossing it all away or if you'll never need the scale. These are not the same thing. But this will be somebody else's problem? I don't want that guy on my team... Something someone told me a long time ago, write code like the guy that takes it over from you is a psychopath and has your address.