I am on my second feature flag startup, but I also somewhat agree with this.
Every project should have flags, but many projects need just the basics and a service is overkill.
Rolling your own JSON still feels like something we ought avoid though. Yes to start out it’s 95% booleans. But then you want a rollout. And then you want some targeting rules. And then you want non booleans… maybe some json. Oo wouldn’t it be nice if the json could conform to a schema… and then eventually you are like damn I really want to change these without deploying. Or you want to read the same flag from multiple services.
I’ve tried to incorporate this lowest common denominator into https://quonfig.com Use it totally free & open source as SDK, and it’s just loading JSON that you can track in git. Agents love it, hot reloads, SDK in lots of languages. But vs rolling your own you’ve got a lot of headroom on the design. A bunch of targeting operators. Segments etc. And then if you do want to get a nice UI / delivery network for real time updates, then you can use the paid side of things.
I’m currently reverse engineering a large enterprise app and the feature flag bloat is truly astounding. Imho excessive feature flag complexity is a symptom of management who are indecisive and mistrusted by the developers.
This of course depends on the quantity and the depth of these feature flags. It’s ok to hard code few of them, maybe it’s not when it becomes a practice and you have tens of them. I think you would have a much easier life if there was a standardized, well documented, way to define them.
To do safe deployments, you must have a way to run versions X and X+1 side by side serving an arbitrary proportion of your users while you inspect metrics.
That covers a lot of uses of feature flags without the bloat.
In my experience these (configuration based feature flags and feature flag services) are actually two complimentary capabilities that solve two completely different problems but that happen to share the same name: feature flags.
The config approach is critical for using feature flags as a software development lifecycle tool. It is how you manage having a codebase which contains the unfinished code for new feature x, but can still be deployed and pass all tests without feature x being turned on.
In this model you need a mechanism which allows a developer who is working on feature x to enable it for local testing, and for your CI system to be able to interact with the flag system to test that the application works in both states - with x turned on and off.
This is ideal for trunk based development models; feature branches are an alternative approach that doesn’t really benefit from this (indeed it adds complexity to working in feature branches).
Meanwhile feature flag services are to solve the problem that different people using the same software need different features turned on. That can be as simple as internal testers or beta users, it can be holding features to roll out in fixed update windows per tenant, or it can be part of a risk management strategy where features are rolled out through progressive exposure.
It can also be tempting to mix up your feature flags system with an A/B testing system - you can use a feature flag service to expose a feature to a test cohort and measure performance changes.
There can be reasons for doing that but it’s really important not to tie all these things together: not every development lifecycle change is an ab test hypothesis. Not every ab test hypothesis is a development lifecycle change (often it is really about testing changes in data, and feature config is just one piece of data you might want to change). Similarly some other data changes than code changes need to roll out progressively to mitigate risk.
So all these things might be feature-flag shaped, but that doesn’t mean you can substitute different feature flag solutions in and solve the same problems.
This post is saying ‘it’s okay not to have an exposure control solution; you can have a config file’ - which is obviously true, if what you have is a config management problem, not an exposure control problem.
Why wouldn't it be? The post does a good job explaining why not only it's not a problem, but also likely desirable in many (I'd wager the vast majority) of circumstances.
Simple, effective, cheap, easy to understand and manage. Not dependent on an external service, not dependent on a third-party.
Hardcoding feature flags prevents you from deploying the same build with different flag sets side by side and comparing results. Depending on the nature of the project, it might be irrelevant or it might be a deal breaker. Especially in cloud environments, it's usually the latter. And everything is in the cloud nowadays.
Unclear how the arguments against feature flags can be used to justify hardcoding them or using a JSON file to manage them. Feature flag decisions are at the end of the day, tradeoffs to solve a problem that may occur for another person at a different place/time. If you are a solo developer, hardcode, use bytes or mail your feature flags - it does not matter. If you are not, there is a lot to take care of beyond a single hardcoded json file.
Do all modern compilers do tree-shaking at this point? Unless you use compiler-based flags, If you hard code them into your code, the dead code paths may still be in the shipped binary. Depending on what you are doing, the security issues mentioned in the article are still present, or you may prematurely reveal an upcoming feature.
I am on my second feature flag startup, but I also somewhat agree with this.
Every project should have flags, but many projects need just the basics and a service is overkill.
Rolling your own JSON still feels like something we ought avoid though. Yes to start out it’s 95% booleans. But then you want a rollout. And then you want some targeting rules. And then you want non booleans… maybe some json. Oo wouldn’t it be nice if the json could conform to a schema… and then eventually you are like damn I really want to change these without deploying. Or you want to read the same flag from multiple services.
I’ve tried to incorporate this lowest common denominator into https://quonfig.com Use it totally free & open source as SDK, and it’s just loading JSON that you can track in git. Agents love it, hot reloads, SDK in lots of languages. But vs rolling your own you’ve got a lot of headroom on the design. A bunch of targeting operators. Segments etc. And then if you do want to get a nice UI / delivery network for real time updates, then you can use the paid side of things.
Local use description: https://docs.quonfig.com/docs/how-tos/open-source-local
I’m currently reverse engineering a large enterprise app and the feature flag bloat is truly astounding. Imho excessive feature flag complexity is a symptom of management who are indecisive and mistrusted by the developers.
This of course depends on the quantity and the depth of these feature flags. It’s ok to hard code few of them, maybe it’s not when it becomes a practice and you have tens of them. I think you would have a much easier life if there was a standardized, well documented, way to define them.
You need to be actively deleting them after the feature has gone live
To do safe deployments, you must have a way to run versions X and X+1 side by side serving an arbitrary proportion of your users while you inspect metrics.
That covers a lot of uses of feature flags without the bloat.
In my experience these (configuration based feature flags and feature flag services) are actually two complimentary capabilities that solve two completely different problems but that happen to share the same name: feature flags.
The config approach is critical for using feature flags as a software development lifecycle tool. It is how you manage having a codebase which contains the unfinished code for new feature x, but can still be deployed and pass all tests without feature x being turned on.
In this model you need a mechanism which allows a developer who is working on feature x to enable it for local testing, and for your CI system to be able to interact with the flag system to test that the application works in both states - with x turned on and off.
This is ideal for trunk based development models; feature branches are an alternative approach that doesn’t really benefit from this (indeed it adds complexity to working in feature branches).
Meanwhile feature flag services are to solve the problem that different people using the same software need different features turned on. That can be as simple as internal testers or beta users, it can be holding features to roll out in fixed update windows per tenant, or it can be part of a risk management strategy where features are rolled out through progressive exposure.
It can also be tempting to mix up your feature flags system with an A/B testing system - you can use a feature flag service to expose a feature to a test cohort and measure performance changes.
There can be reasons for doing that but it’s really important not to tie all these things together: not every development lifecycle change is an ab test hypothesis. Not every ab test hypothesis is a development lifecycle change (often it is really about testing changes in data, and feature config is just one piece of data you might want to change). Similarly some other data changes than code changes need to roll out progressively to mitigate risk.
So all these things might be feature-flag shaped, but that doesn’t mean you can substitute different feature flag solutions in and solve the same problems.
This post is saying ‘it’s okay not to have an exposure control solution; you can have a config file’ - which is obviously true, if what you have is a config management problem, not an exposure control problem.
Why wouldn't it be? The post does a good job explaining why not only it's not a problem, but also likely desirable in many (I'd wager the vast majority) of circumstances.
Simple, effective, cheap, easy to understand and manage. Not dependent on an external service, not dependent on a third-party.
Hardcoding feature flags prevents you from deploying the same build with different flag sets side by side and comparing results. Depending on the nature of the project, it might be irrelevant or it might be a deal breaker. Especially in cloud environments, it's usually the latter. And everything is in the cloud nowadays.
Unclear how the arguments against feature flags can be used to justify hardcoding them or using a JSON file to manage them. Feature flag decisions are at the end of the day, tradeoffs to solve a problem that may occur for another person at a different place/time. If you are a solo developer, hardcode, use bytes or mail your feature flags - it does not matter. If you are not, there is a lot to take care of beyond a single hardcoded json file.
Do all modern compilers do tree-shaking at this point? Unless you use compiler-based flags, If you hard code them into your code, the dead code paths may still be in the shipped binary. Depending on what you are doing, the security issues mentioned in the article are still present, or you may prematurely reveal an upcoming feature.
note that this is a "pre-november 2025 opus 4.5" post folks