> Early and careful abstraction of absolutely every layer of your program is something you will always thank yourself for.
If you knew what you were doing when you made those early and careful abstractions, then I agree completely (the Go standard library, after all, is a set of careful & well-reasoned abstractions). But if you made the wrong choices three years ago, because you didn't understand the problem you have today back then (either because you didn't understand the problem then, or because the problem changed), then you're going to hate yourself.
If you're attacking a well-known problem which will be the same problem you'll be attacking in a decade, then sure: early abstraction isn't premature. But how often do we do that, and how often are we exploring an unexplored problem space? At least for the projects I've worked on, each one has been terra nova.
If you knew what you were doing when you made those early and careful abstractions, then I agree completely (the Go standard library, after all, is a set of careful & well-reasoned abstractions). But if you made the wrong choices three years ago, because you didn't understand the problem you have today back then (either because you didn't understand the problem then, or because the problem changed), then you're going to hate yourself.
If you're attacking a well-known problem which will be the same problem you'll be attacking in a decade, then sure: early abstraction isn't premature. But how often do we do that, and how often are we exploring an unexplored problem space? At least for the projects I've worked on, each one has been terra nova.