[tomgp]

Yes, clearly in that case performance is important but is performance always the most important thing?

I read the article and didn't find it convincing, I would argue that it's clearly not always the most important thing. This isn't an "excuse" it's a calculation that teams make, the author feels that people make the tradeoff at the wrong point but instead of making that argument he frames decisions not to prioritise performance as "excuses" which is bullshit. There's always more performance optimisations one can make and there always comes a point where it just doesn't make sense to do so for all manner of reasons.

A trivial example: I have a script which downloads a few thousand GIS Shape files and converts them into geoJSON. It runs automatically once a month, usually whilst I sleep. A run takes about 5 minutes at the moment but there are a couple of things I could do to make it run in a fraction of that time but then the script would be two or three times longer and more complex, and I'd have to spend a couple of hours writing and testing code, (there'd also be some edge cases that I'd need to account for which the current setup allows me to ignore). I judge that to be a waste of time which would make anyone who has to take ownership of this script in the future's life more difficult. So that's my "excuse" and I'm sticking to it.