3 ms·

In of the videos of Google I/O, developers were talking about the "bus factor". It basically means if one of your developers were to get run over by a bus, how

by znt 16y ago

In of the videos of Google I/O, developers were talking about the "bus factor". It basically means if one of your developers were to get run over by a bus, how would the development process of your product be affected? That's why they encouraged documenting the work done etc. Same principal applies to your current situation too I guess. If that 1 critical developer is run over by a bus / decides to quit / has a health problem / has a baby etc things may stagnate more than you can imagine. A key advantage of a startup is to be flexible and lean, which means you'll be able to adopt and discard things faster than the "big boys". So basically rewriting the core to let everyone (especially newcomer employees) get productive on it easily would be a better idea.

shandsaker 16y ago
Excellent point. Thanks for the feedback.
DamonOehlman 16y ago
I'm not sure that it's entirely that simple. I don't want to get into any language wars but certainly in some cases the one single developer coding in a language they are extremely proficient in may in fact help use the "runway" most effectively. The cost of collaboration is not equal to 0, and if it was my money I'd be looking for optimal efficiency over broad accessibility. My vote would be for option 1, as you have already indicated that this affects only 40% of your product. If you do experience continued steady growth and become cash positive then pull in extra resources to support the 40%. Given of course, whatever the 40% is written in is considered to be a good language. I won't define good, it means different things to so many people...
- shandsaker 16y ago
  I specifically avoided mentioning the languages so as not to cloud peoples judgement of the issue... :-) Yep I get your point, that optimal efficiency is the preferred path. Good insight thanks.
  - alexro 16y ago
    So, maintaining that technology boosts your runway, but also puts you in danger of loosing everything if the developer quits. Assuming from your (positive) feedback to that idea you think it shouldn't happen in the 12 months timeframe.

by znt 16y ago

shandsaker 16y ago

Excellent point. Thanks for the feedback.

DamonOehlman 16y ago

I'm not sure that it's entirely that simple. I don't want to get into any language wars but certainly in some cases the one single developer coding in a language they are extremely proficient in may in fact help use the "runway" most effectively. The cost of collaboration is not equal to 0, and if it was my money I'd be looking for optimal efficiency over broad accessibility. My vote would be for option 1, as you have already indicated that this affects only 40% of your product. If you do experience continued steady growth and become cash positive then pull in extra resources to support the 40%. Given of course, whatever the 40% is written in is considered to be a good language. I won't define good, it means different things to so many people...

shandsaker 16y ago
I specifically avoided mentioning the languages so as not to cloud peoples judgement of the issue... :-) Yep I get your point, that optimal efficiency is the preferred path. Good insight thanks.
- alexro 16y ago
  So, maintaining that technology boosts your runway, but also puts you in danger of loosing everything if the developer quits. Assuming from your (positive) feedback to that idea you think it shouldn't happen in the 12 months timeframe.