Most people solve their subscription fatigue by canceling Netflix. I solved it by vibe-coding my own workout app instead of paying another SaaS. Two weeks ago, I decided to get serious about my workouts again and start logging them. I looked for an existing solution that has the following: create workouts log sets, reps, and weights a calendar to track consistency simple enough. Free apps were crammed with ads. Paid apps had bloated features I didn’t want. Both annoyed me. Before vibe-coding, I’d either tolerate ads or pay. Now there’s a third option - build my own. Of course, you could always build your own, but pre-vibe-coding it would take much more time to be worth it. How did I choose the vibe coding platform? I logged into loveable, base44, bolt, and wrote the following (imperfect) prompt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I want to create a personal webapp for managing my own workout routines (kind of a workout logger) I want to be able to define "workouts" - collection of exercises including sets and reps I want to be able to track which workout i did on which day - calendar view I want to be able to log the weights I did for every exercise in every set. I want my workout templates to be a simple collection of exercises that are plaintext - don't create some kind of an exercise library.. i just want to type the exercise name myself make it stateful, including a db connection to store all the relevant data. Whichever tool gave me the best first shot, I ran with. This time it was Loveable. Iterating With that one-shot starting point from loveable, I published it, and went to my first workout at the gym, all excited and ready to use what I built. First workout: I needed notes for exercises. Another: supersets. Each time I wrote it down, went home, and 15 minutes later I published a new version with loveable. After two weeks of using this app at the gym and doing tweaks, the app feels solid. On my last iteration, I added a badges/achievement page, and a github-like consistency widget that looks cool I hope will help me stay on track and be consistent. Sharing Friends wanted to try it too - the problem? I didn’t make it secured by sign-in, I thought I only need it for myself, and even if someone’s going to find this weird loveable URL, they could only see my workouts - who cares… But of course for my friends I’ll write one more prompt - and so I added Supabase auth within minutes. Final Thoughts This post isn’t about showing off my little workout logger anyone could make in a few hours prompting. It’s about how easy it is today to scratch your own itch. You build the exact features you need, when you need them. No ads, no bloat, no adapting to someone else’s UX. Just something comfortable and fun to use. It’s never been easier to bring your ideas to life, small or big.

If there’s one pattern I’ve seen across multiple companies, from scrappy startups to big corps, that causes endless headaches, it’s this: a single cache cluster shared across services. I recently shortly wrote about my lessons from building and maintaining distributed systems at scale, and the first point that came to mind is exactly this - it starts with an excuse of simplicity, “we already have a cache cluster up and running, let’s just make this other service use it, no need for more infra”, and ends with a confused on-call engineer trying to debug which services were affected by the last keys eviction. So I want to double down on this idea and explain in more detail why it becomes a nightmare once your system scales. One eviction policy You got different services each throwing keys at the same redis cluster. A sudden spike/bug just caused a dramatic increase in cache writes - your cluster wasn’t ready for this, it hits maxmemory and now different keys are being removed based on your eviction policy. What’s the problem? there’s no isolation - service A caused the max memory, and now service B, C, D also pay the price - their keys are being removed as well from the cluster, and could affect the latency, and correctness of other flows of your system. Monitoring is harder Our metric fires up — we see a drop in hit rate on the cluster. Which service is causing it? Who’s affected? Instead of thinking about one service, you’re now mentally juggling everything across the entire system. More noise, less clarity. Although monitoring is harder, you could set up application monitors that you send once you write/read from the cache, based on the prefix of the key. potentially if you are organized and each service that uses the cluster has a unique prefix and you can easily identify between the hit rates of different prefixes - that’s great, but you have to work to get there. Debugging is harder This ties back to my first point about the eviction policy. You had 10m keys. something happend. now you got 5m. The effect on the services is really hard to trace. One service might have lost 100k keys, and you barely see a difference in its monitors, but it doesn’t mean your users are not feeling something is off, maybe today the are waiting a bit more for the page to load, but it’s not too long to hit your monitors thresholds. In that case, if you didn’t have a monitor on the cache cluster for keys eviction, you might be totally blind..”oh I see a slight latency increase here, but no monitors popped - guess all is well” So, never use a shared cache cluster? No, that’s not the lesson here. In some cases it is totally fine to use a single cache cluster. For example: You don’t really have a lot of traffic read/written to the cache so most of it is free anyway You store shared static data (for example, feature flags) Also note that some of the points I was making here against using a single cache cluster, can be somewhat mitigated by having good monitoring set in place. For example, having a defined prefix for the cache key per use-case, per service, and publishing metrics in the application level so we have observability to which type of keys (by prefix) are experiecning a low hit ratio. But on the other hand, tracking keys eviction is harder to monitor, since it’s not initiated by your system. Anyway, I hope you get the point. If you are getting started, a single cache cluster is totally fine. Otherwise, spin up another cache cluster, and sleep better at night. 🚨 Become a better software engineer. practice building real systems, get code reviews, and mentorship from senior engineers. Get started with 404skill

when i was a student, everything was simpler. grind leetcode. build projects. get an offer. i knew the salaries. i knew what “winning” looked like. it was a somewhat straight line from broke student to backend engineer at a top company. and i did it, i 10x my life in the span of 4 years. five years in. and honestly? it’s… fine. it’s more than fine. but it also feels like i’m stuck on a plateau. the growth feels logarithmic. the peak that isn’t the peak things are good, but i can’t stop feeling like i want more, even though i am comfortable. i look back at the student version of me, and i see hunger. direction. i look at me now and i see someone who’s tried a bunch of things: built products that barely anyone used started a newsletter, got some nice traffic, but it didn’t stick thinking about podcasts, courses, maybe a dev agency? dreaming of 10x-ing my life again, but not sure where to invest my time. when i was younger, the path was obvious. now it’s all vague, i could do anything. do i go all-in on indie hacking? live off my rsu’s for a few years and just build? try again with another product? double down on the blog? start a podcast? well, the next level doesn’t seem to come with an instructions book. escaping means risking the fall as a cs student you learn that escaping a local maxima usually means exploring a few downs to find a higher maxima. well, applying it to life is scary. what if i lose everything i worked hard to build? i am no longer a student living off of scholarships, i have more obligations. and also, the scariest part of all is what if this is the best it gets? i prefer to be positive and believe there’s another jump out there. something worth building. something that might actually shift my trajectory again. i just haven’t found it yet. but i’m looking. 🚨 Become a better software engineer. practice building real systems, get code reviews, and mentorship from senior engineers. Get started with 404skill

I recently wrote about over-engineering and striking a good balance between making your code “too” future-proof and not making it future-proof at all. Some time later, I realized it was missing a critical perspective. I hadn’t addressed over-engineering from an architectural point of view, so this post is dedicated precisely to that. Let’s talk about a decision I made for Collecto, my side project. Collecto is still in its early stages, and like most early-stage projects, its future is uncertain. It could grow into something big—or not. That’s where architectural decisions get tricky. You don’t want to overengineer and waste time, but you also don’t want to under-engineer and regret not laying a solid foundation. So what’s the problem? Collecto is a forms-backend service, meaning it handles the creation, management, and processing of forms data for applications. I wanted to add the ability to send emails on certain events. For example, when a new user signs up for your form, you might want to send them a welcome email. The simplest solution? I could write a new service responsible for sending emails and call it directly wherever needed— for example, right after a user signup is saved to the database. This approach works, is easy to set up, and introduces no additional overhead. However, it results in tight coupling, making future changes more challenging. If tomorrow I want to also send a notification to the form owner when they receive a new subscription, I would have to keep adding more responsibilities to the form service code. This bloats the core service, which should ideally focus solely on CRUD operations for forms. On the other end of the spectrum, I could go all-in and build a distributed pub/sub system with a service bus like RabbitMQ or Azure Service Bus. This would give me scalability, decoupling, and all the good stuff. But it’s also a massive investment in time and complexity for a project that doesn’t need it, yet. I didn’t like both options, so I looked for a 3rd alternative and found MediatR which is a mediator pattern implementation in .NET. Why MediatR is a good middle-ground? MediatR facilitates communication between different parts of the application without them needing to reference each other directly. Instead of invoking methods directly, you can send requests or publish notifications, allowing registered handlers to respond accordingly. This approach maintains loose coupling, making the system easier to maintain and evolve. At the same time, it doesn’t introduce the overhead of managing infrastructure like a service bus or message queue. Everything stays in-process, simple, and fast. One of the primary reasons I chose MediatR is its simplicity. Implementing communication patterns with MediatR is straightforward and requires minimal configuration. Compared to a full-fledged service bus, MediatR demands a much smaller time investment and eliminates operational overhead such as monitoring queues or scaling message brokers. It can’t be all sunshines and rainbows MediatR has a few cons compared to other out-of-process messaging brokers, for example Events are in-process only. If your application crashes, you lose the events. There’s no out of the box retry mechanism for failed event handlers. If you deploy multiple instances of Collecto, MediatR won’t distribute events across them. Bottom line Architecture isn’t about perfection—it’s about trade-offs. MediatR worked for Collecto because it gave me a decoupled, flexible way to handle events without the overhead of a service bus. It wasn’t the simplest solution, but it was the right one for where the project is today. The next time you’re making an architectural decision, remember this: the best solution isn’t the most impressive or complex—it’s the one that solves your problem now while leaving room for growth later. 🚨 Become a better software engineer. practice building real systems, get code reviews, and mentorship from senior engineers. Get started with 404skill