The blog post "Reinvent the Wheel" argues that reinventing the wheel, specifically in software development, can be a valuable learning experience, especially for beginners. While using existing libraries is often more efficient for production, building things from scratch provides a deeper understanding of fundamental concepts and underlying mechanisms. This hands-on approach can lead to stronger problem-solving skills and the ability to create more customized and potentially innovative solutions in the future, even if the initial creation isn't as polished or efficient. The author emphasizes that this practice should be done intentionally for educational purposes, not in professional settings where established solutions are readily available.
The blog post explores a hypothetical redesign of Kafka, leveraging modern technologies and learnings from the original's strengths and weaknesses. It suggests improvements like replacing ZooKeeper with a built-in consensus mechanism, utilizing a more modern storage engine like RocksDB for improved performance and tiered storage options, and adopting a pull-based consumer model inspired by systems like Pulsar for lower latency and more efficient resource utilization. The post emphasizes the potential benefits of a gRPC-based protocol for improved interoperability and extensibility, along with a redesigned API that addresses some of Kafka's complexities. Ultimately, the author envisions a "Kafka 2.0" that maintains core Kafka principles while offering improved performance, scalability, and developer experience.
HN commenters largely agree that Kafka's complexity and operational burden are significant drawbacks. Several suggest that a ground-up rewrite wouldn't fix the core issues stemming from its distributed nature and the inherent difficulty of exactly-once semantics. Some advocate for simpler alternatives like SQS for less demanding use cases, while others point to newer projects like Redpanda and Kestra as potential improvements. Performance is also a recurring theme, with some commenters arguing that Kafka's performance is ultimately good enough and that a rewrite wouldn't drastically change things. Finally, there's skepticism about the blog post itself, with some suggesting it's merely a lead generation tool for the author's company.
OpenJKDF2 is a cross-platform, open-source reimplementation of the Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy game engine written in C. It aims to be a clean and modern engine while maintaining compatibility with the original games' content, supporting both single-player and multiplayer modes. The project prioritizes features like improved rendering, physics, and networking, allowing for modifications and enhancements beyond what was possible with the original engine. It's designed to be portable and has been tested on Windows, macOS, and Linux.
Hacker News users discuss OpenJKDF2's potential benefits, including cross-platform compatibility and potential performance improvements over the original Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast game engine. Some express excitement about potential modding opportunities and the project's clean codebase, making it easier to understand and contribute to. Others question the practical benefits, wondering if the performance gains are substantial enough to warrant a full reimplementation. The use of CMake is praised, while concerns are raised about the licensing implications of incorporating assets from the original game. One commenter points out potential issues with online multiplayer due to timing differences, which are hard to replicate perfectly.
Summary of Comments ( 195 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44083467
Hacker News users generally agreed with the author's premise that reinventing the wheel can be beneficial for learning and deeper understanding, particularly for foundational concepts. Several commenters shared personal anecdotes of times they reimplemented existing tools, leading to valuable insights and a greater appreciation for the complexities involved. Some cautioned against always reinventing the wheel, especially in production environments where reliability and efficiency are crucial. The discussion also touched upon the importance of knowing when to reinvent – for educational purposes or when existing solutions don't quite fit the specific needs of a project. A few users pointed out the distinction between reinventing for learning versus reinventing in a professional context, highlighting the need for pragmatism in the latter.
The Hacker News post "Reinvent the Wheel" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44083467) discussing the article at https://endler.dev/2025/reinvent-the-wheel/ generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters offering perspectives on the value of reinventing the wheel.
A prominent thread focused on the educational benefits of rebuilding existing tools. One commenter argued that recreating something, even if a superior solution exists, provides invaluable learning experiences, especially for beginners. They emphasized that understanding the underlying mechanics and design choices is crucial for genuine mastery, even if the end product isn't as polished or efficient. This sentiment was echoed by others who recounted their own formative experiences rebuilding software tools, highlighting how it solidified their understanding and allowed them to appreciate the complexities of seemingly simple utilities. This thread underscored the importance of "reinventing the wheel" as a pedagogical tool.
Another commenter pointed out the distinction between blind reinvention and informed reinvention. They argued that simply recreating something without understanding why the original was designed the way it was offers limited benefit. However, if the reinvention is driven by a desire to explore different approaches, optimize for specific constraints, or address shortcomings of the original, then it can be a productive exercise. This comment highlighted the importance of having clear objectives and a critical approach when choosing to reinvent existing solutions.
Several comments touched upon the practical aspects of software development. One user suggested that reinventing the wheel can be useful when existing solutions are encumbered by licensing issues or when specific customizations are required that are difficult to achieve with off-the-shelf tools. Another comment emphasized the value of understanding the internals of tools, even if you don't rebuild them from scratch. This knowledge can be crucial for debugging, troubleshooting, and making informed decisions about which tools to use.
The discussion also touched upon the potential downsides of reinventing the wheel. One commenter cautioned against spending too much time on reinventing common functionalities when robust and well-maintained solutions already exist. They highlighted the importance of focusing on the core value proposition of a project rather than getting bogged down in recreating basic utilities.
In summary, the comments generally acknowledge the potential benefits of reinventing the wheel, particularly for educational purposes and in specific constrained circumstances. However, they also caution against blindly recreating existing solutions without a clear understanding of the underlying principles and the potential trade-offs involved. The thread underscores the importance of approaching the decision to "reinvent the wheel" with a thoughtful and critical mindset.