3 ms·
I see the value of deciding what not to do for version(s) X of something, but ruling something out for all eternity seems a little... short-sighted? Who's to sa
by mehrdadn 8y ago
I see the value of deciding what not to do for version(s) X of something, but ruling something out for all eternity seems a little... short-sighted? Who's to say that what you're ruling out won't become the next big concern for everyone and your technology won't be the odd one out without it?
- usrusr 8y agoThere are two possible ways to deal with that situation: create something new that is the old thing plus the feature that had been ruled out for it, or simply revoke that decision. Eternity can be surprisingly short when everybody agrees that it is time to move on. Both ways are perfectly possible, and both would in many cases be much preferable to having an implicit "is it time yet for X?" on the agenda every time the version number is incremented. "Not in the foreseeable future" is effectively understood as a far out roadmap item, no matter how much you don't mean it that way. I'd rather see a humble "we thought that we would never X, but we were wrong" repeated for many different X than a single misleading "we absolutely commit to not be adding GOTO before 2025".
- lmm 8y ago> Eternity can be surprisingly short when everybody agrees that it is time to move on. That relies on having a decision-making process and culture that accommodates that. In my current job I'm stuck dealing with inadequate tools because of tool choices made in 2002 that no-one has the political capital to revisit.
- rue 8y agoIn all likelihood an entirely new product will be a better fit in that case, anyway. Especially if whichever direction you do pick completely precludes what you decide not to do. In practice (and with some experience) most decisions do not prevent revisiting them later.