4 ms·

I feel like this is part of why Brooks says build the first one to throw away, because you're going to. People seem quite unable to imagine life with a program

I feel like this is part of why Brooks says build the first one to throw away, because you're going to. People seem quite unable to imagine life with a program that doesn't exist. Building a more precise specification would be valuable if people were really able to evaluate the specification as if it were a program, but they don't seem to be able to do that. So we wind up building the whole thing to see if it's right, and it never is, but then we build the next one, and it's much closer.

freshhawk 9y ago
They are able to do that. But, unlike the physical world, it's really expensive compared to just building a virtual one first. And then really tempting to just use that prototype, or patch it up. If it was super cheap and easy and almost free to build things in the physical world we'd probably do the same thing and just skip the architecture and wing it.
michaelchisari 9y ago
> Brooks says build the first one to throw away A great theory, but all too often, companies have a hard time scheduling time for a rewrite, and the hacked-together rough-prototype code gets pushed into production in perpetuity.
- ako 9y ago
  And that's because companies have learned that customers usually aren't patient enough to wait for something rewritten. Most customers want something now, even if it's not perfect, rather than wait for something better. So, to survive in a markplace with these types of customers, companies have to shorten time to market...
  - btschaegg 9y ago
    Well, even that explanation would imply that the company should give you time to at least fix the worst hacks after they've released the first version (which will probably have problems anyway), but that also doesn't seem to happen...
- btschaegg 9y ago
  I'm more and more wondering if the real reason isn't that business people have issues with technical terminology. In this case: A prototype is something you throw away before you build the real thing. Yet somehow many non-technical people think its meaning lies more along the lines of "beta". I've seen other misunderstandings like people describing security-focused static analysis as "pentest". Each time I'm just left scratching my head...
  - wolfgke 9y ago
    Solution: Be pedantic in your usage of words and correct people around and before you all the time if they use a word wrongly.
    - btschaegg 9y ago
      Let's say it that way: If that's an effective way for you to deal with this, I envy you for your work environment.
- ellius 9y ago
  I code for a couple of the other groups in my division as a favor. I still run our entire QA group out of a folder called "mock database" for this exact reason.

freshhawk 9y ago

They are able to do that. But, unlike the physical world, it's really expensive compared to just building a virtual one first. And then really tempting to just use that prototype, or patch it up. If it was super cheap and easy and almost free to build things in the physical world we'd probably do the same thing and just skip the architecture and wing it.

michaelchisari 9y ago

> Brooks says build the first one to throw away A great theory, but all too often, companies have a hard time scheduling time for a rewrite, and the hacked-together rough-prototype code gets pushed into production in perpetuity.

ako 9y ago
And that's because companies have learned that customers usually aren't patient enough to wait for something rewritten. Most customers want something now, even if it's not perfect, rather than wait for something better. So, to survive in a markplace with these types of customers, companies have to shorten time to market...
- btschaegg 9y ago
  Well, even that explanation would imply that the company should give you time to at least fix the worst hacks after they've released the first version (which will probably have problems anyway), but that also doesn't seem to happen...
btschaegg 9y ago
I'm more and more wondering if the real reason isn't that business people have issues with technical terminology. In this case: A prototype is something you throw away before you build the real thing. Yet somehow many non-technical people think its meaning lies more along the lines of "beta". I've seen other misunderstandings like people describing security-focused static analysis as "pentest". Each time I'm just left scratching my head...
- wolfgke 9y ago
  Solution: Be pedantic in your usage of words and correct people around and before you all the time if they use a word wrongly.
  - btschaegg 9y ago
    Let's say it that way: If that's an effective way for you to deal with this, I envy you for your work environment.
ellius 9y ago
I code for a couple of the other groups in my division as a favor. I still run our entire QA group out of a folder called "mock database" for this exact reason.