Yes, it is clear that software can have different options or questions of what to optimize for.
That still seems orthogonal to, or at least a separate consideration from, the question of minimizing the code.
Of course what to optimize for should be as carefully considered as any other factor. It is kind of the core point of a design effort.
The developer or team should figure out what to optimize for, then figure out how to implement that with the least possible code. Of course, some optimizations will require more code than others, and that should be one consideration (e.g., "yes, feature XYZ is cool, but is it worth the amount of code — slowness & bug habitat — that it will require?") in deciding whether or not to implement it.
So, I'm still not seeing how your point is an argument for writing more code, or invalidating the principles in TFA or the above posts? It just seems an offtopic distraction?
That still seems orthogonal to, or at least a separate consideration from, the question of minimizing the code.
Of course what to optimize for should be as carefully considered as any other factor. It is kind of the core point of a design effort.
The developer or team should figure out what to optimize for, then figure out how to implement that with the least possible code. Of course, some optimizations will require more code than others, and that should be one consideration (e.g., "yes, feature XYZ is cool, but is it worth the amount of code — slowness & bug habitat — that it will require?") in deciding whether or not to implement it.
So, I'm still not seeing how your point is an argument for writing more code, or invalidating the principles in TFA or the above posts? It just seems an offtopic distraction?