> If you find yourself in an organization where the cost of engineering is high, consider an investment in your infrastructure.<p>Whilst I agree with this generally, infrastructure engineering can be very expensive.<p>Yes, it can reduce costs of other areas - but the reduction is offset by the cost of engineering, maintaining and evolving said infrastructure.<p>If you want to make engineering cheaper across the organisation, take that into account.<p>> Infrastructure, on the other hand, is much easier to augment and often times higher leverage.<p>No, it's not. Infrastructure is harder to augment. The potential blast radius of infrastructure changes is, by definition, much larger than in any other area.<p>> I view infrastructure as the parts of a system that reduce the cost and blast radius of introducing new or removing existing functionality.<p>This is the crucial bit. Infrastructure, when implemented well, can have those effects of reducing cost and blast radius of other areas. This is at the expense of increasing cost and blast radius of the infrastructure itself. Poorly implemented infrastructure can be a huge net negative.<p>---<p>In essence, the post is (relatively poorly IMO) advocating for more and better platform engineering. I agree with the general sentiment, and I even like the proposed "litmus test".<p>The article itself could do with more thoughtful arguments though.