>But that's just pushing the metaphor back a level: in order to know how to design your codebase so that it's well-organized and extensible, you have to have a

>But that's just pushing the metaphor back a level: in order to know how to design your codebase so that it's well-organized and extensible, you have to have a pretty good understanding of what it does, what it needs to do, and how it does it. There's also the risk of design paralysis. Where you focus so much on perfect program design that adding a new feature or making a change is offset by excessive, obsessive time spent making sure it fits the design absolutely perfectly. Some programmers think more about the aesthetics and organization of their code than the actual function. They may make large refactors with every minor change or spend hours thinking about the design when just implementing their first intuition would be way more efficient for both their present and future selves. So, in some cases it may actually take more time to make a change to a well-designed codebase vs. someone who's just plugging things in as they go and refactoring later when they need to. But I would agree the opposite problem of poor design is far more common and that it's usually much faster to make changes to a well-designed application.