I founded a company and reached $6M ARR with >50% net profit margin. After 4 years decided to do a full rewrite. Finished it successfully within a year including full migration of all clients. Was the best decision ever.
Not op but I would say that profits are only one part of the equation. If you have massive profits and you don't put resources in other areas (HR, engineering, etc.) You lose sustainability and might stall and die eventually. It's a tradeoff between long term sustainability and short term money making IMO
Congratulations. It reads like you were in control, the driver seat and into the code base. What I want to say is that I consider a rewrite possible because you controlled most /all aspects.
Currently we are moving from several ERP instances/configurations due to acquisitions to one completely new ERP version and architecture. This is a huge project consuming enormous resources and needs a director reporting to the CEO.
Exactly this. It sounds easy but this type of creator who can do this is very rare but usually has a high success rate. This should be the defintion of the "10X dev"
OP had the thesis that the "Norway sovereign fund" is funded by high taxes. This fund is also known as the "Oil fund":
The Government Pension Fund Global, also known as the Oil Fund, was established in 1990 to invest the surplus revenues of the Norwegian petroleum sector.
Conclusion: The Norwegian society is not just rich just because you are that smart. You obviously had a good portion of luck.
Since people are misreading this comment, either deliberately or because I have not been clear enough, I am going to assume good faith and edit the comment to be more clear.
---
And 6.7x the amount of the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global exceeds the entire annual budget of the US government.
Imagine if the US could just magically borrow from next year's budget, but at zero cost? That's the net effect of having an entire additional several trillion dollars laying around.
In hard numbers, that 6.7x works out to around $9.3 trillion, of which it's a pretty safe assumption that you can "borrow" around 3% of it annually, forever. That works out to around $280 billion.
It ain't chump change. We could easily end homelessness in the US with that amount, and have much more left over to do even more social good.
After we take the 50-ish billion a year it would take to eradicate homelessness (keep in mind, we can sustain this in real terms approximately forever), let's move on to higher education. The Debt Free College act would reportedly cost the US $75 billion a year.
No problem. We've only spent half of what we can borrow in perpetuity from the future with this hypothetical sovereign wealth fund laying around.
Let's go for the triple crown and give everybody universal, employer-independent health coverage.
Oh, guess what? That was a trick. Implementing universal healthcare, simply replacing premiums by taxes, would save the US many more billions of dollars we could put to good use doing even more social good.
And, so, now, we've reached a point where nobody in the US needs to ever worry about student loans, medical costs, or homelessness again. (Well, okay, not nobody -- we still need to figure out something for the people who have taken out student loans already, but I think we can probably handle that.) It's not quite the extensive welfare state that Norway has, but it's pretty damn close.
Guess what happens to the labor market under those conditions? If you said "it becomes much more like a free market," you guessed right! And who can argue against that, really?
Comparing a pension fund, which is designed to pay out over, well, indefinitely, to an annual budget, makes no sense. One is a rate. One is a total. It's like saying you can fly 400 mph but the earth is only 90 mega-miles from the sun and since 90 is less than 400 the sun is not that far.
Numerology doesn't work in economics.
The fact is that Norway has this luxury solely through massive per capita oil wealth. The US cannot come close to this.
If your test loop depends on waiting for what sounds like an end to end test, the core problem is that you’re missing lower level functional/unit tests. Nobody should have to regularly wait for a server to install visual studio and oracle crap just to get feedback on a code change.
Now this isn’t the sys admins fault at all. The sys admin definitely helped here but the devs still have a broken workflow.
This solution was designed to solve the whole package. The script is designed to run on BOTH a CI system and a standalone dev box (real or virtual), giving the same deterministic, stable environment so that everyone is always on the same page (Honestly I'm surprised this isn't done more often).
As a developer, you run the script once on your fresh Windows dev box, and then you can develop, run unit tests, or even run the CI script locally to have confidence that it will actually pass CI when you check your code in (and not overload the server with bad builds). In fact, I did all of my dev work in a VM because it's super easy to tear down and rebuild if I break the OS somehow or introduce an unexpected dependency ("it works on my machine" syndrome).
As an admin, you only have to include this one script onto a fresh Windows image, then run it and save the resulting VM image for the CI server to run (instead of installing everything on every run as part of the build script like they were doing).
The original issue was that everyone was using the CI server AS a dev environment because they couldn't get the project to build on a standalone box (it was tricky to set up, and undocumented, and the build scripts assumed a complicated CI environment). And management wasn't even raising a stink about this, despite the HUGE cost (in a large corporation I can understand this sort of thing falling through the cracks sometimes, but not in a small startup!). I'm actually not a sysadmin (I'm a developer), but I do hate inefficiencies like this enough to do something about it.
As somebody who gave two honest attempt at building a PRNG... no, not quite. Building complexity -- especially one that isn't trivally reducible -- is quite hard.
A PRNG is inherently complex and winners of https://www.ioccc.org/ are a class of complexity you deem reducible. This competition involves building complexity and since there are winners it's feasible to claim that to win it is "hard". Since this straddles a form of art, placing a value judgement as easy vs hard seems invalid.
The reason I'm thinking about this is because I recognize that adding accidental complexity is far easier than removing it. In fact, I spend a significant amount of time "trivially reducing" such complexity.
My both attempts at PRNGs resulted in rather short cycles -- ones that were easily compressed several-times-fold by GZIP and similar algorithms. Thus I consider them to have been trivially reducible.
Yes, a well designed PRNG algorithm and implementation can be quite simple, but it is quite hard to design them well. It takes either non-trivial math, or non-trivial amount of iterative improvements.
