When One Beyond invited me to take part in the London Tech Leaders Summit, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. What I definitely wasn’t expecting was a seven‑foot robot interrupting the opening welcome. As the doors flung open, the robot ducked to fit through, marched to the side of the stage, interrupted the speaker, and proceeded to continue the welcome itself. It was initially a little unsettling, but to be fair, its jokes were better. What followed was a full day of presentations, panels, roundtable discussions, and workshops. All were framed through a leadership lens and all centred on AI. I know what you’re thinking: not another AI conference. But this one really stood out. Rather than theoretical hype, it was software leaders - many in similar roles to mine - openly sharing what they’ve learned from using AI, where it’s taken them, and how it’s shaping their organisations. There were several highlights. Hywel Carver , CEO of Skiller Whale , made a particularly memorable point:...
I wrote Deep Imports Considered Harmful for two reasons. Obviously to persuade people not to use deep imports, but I also wanted to reinforce that components should have an abstract interface and an encapsulated concrete implementation. I was expecting some pushback, but all I got was something I should have seen coming and covered in the original piece. Here’s the follow-up to get it covered. Every time you tell someone that deep imports are a bad idea, there’s always one reply waiting in the wings: But deep imports perform better. It sounds plausible. It feels intuitive. But it’s wrong. To be fair, this myth didn’t come from nowhere. In the past, some libraries really did ship poorly structured entry points with giant index.js barrels with side effects, no tree‑shaking - a build‑time optimisation that removes code you never use from your final JavaScript bundle - support, and no clear separation between public API and internal implementation. In those cases, deep imports sometimes ...