5 ms·

I would even add that sometimes "maintainable and reliable" are overrated. Sometimes being quick to market is more important then having to maintain the produc

I would even add that sometimes "maintainable and reliable" are overrated. Sometimes being quick to market is more important then having to maintain the product. Sometimes providing a bad product is only relative to the competition (which may have a worse product). Sometimes having a good customer service is more important than the reliability of the product. etc.,. I do agree with solving the end user needs... if a client does not need your product you really can't run a company for long.

slumber86 4y ago
>Sometimes providing a bad product is only relative to the competition (which may have a worse product). Eventually will came someone with a truly good product and distrupt the market
- croes 4y ago
  Or this company is bought up, which was there first and therefore has the larger financial reserves.
- amitport 4y ago
  will they? In some fields having a good business and regulatory relationship with the customers (e.g., hospitals, DoD, banks, etc.,) is much tougher than building the product. There are many barriers in place and these fields are not so easily disrupted (having a superior product is definitely not enough). Also note that having a bad product now that is better than the competition does not mean you cease to improve.
  - blowski 4y ago
    Exactly. I've worked in companies dominating a particular niche. Everything about the technology is "terrible" from an engineer's perspective, and yet nothing shifts their dominance. A massive rewrite that damages customer relationships is more risky than doing nothing to improve it.
Joel_Mckay 4y ago
>"maintainable and reliable" are overrated That is popular opinion among the unemployed, as hoisting that BS on your project lead has real world consequences after your code audit. =)
- mattmanser 4y ago
  It was Facebook's philosophy and also Twitter used to go down a lot in the early days. So I'm not sure I'd agree with your statement. It depends on your company culture.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Both are in a strong first mover / network effect industry (social). It's definitely an optimization in certain cases.
  - Joel_Mckay 4y ago
    In general, a well planned API allowed Facebook to integrate a lot of 3rd party features to attract more users. Simply put, a messy standard is still a standard.
- amitport 4y ago
  Here is a quick CEO dilemma: You have startup with about 4 people, you did a quick prototype, showed it to some potential customers and the worse has happened: They want it! and they want it now! The head engineer says it's all just a temp hack, it is completely shitty, they could give it to costumers but then the maintenance will be impossible, they will need months to add any new features on top of it, they will probably waste all their time on fixing bugs, and they'll quit if they have to maintain it for long. What would you do? (A) continue develop until you have a nice maintainable product, or (B) sell the product now and face the consequence of wasted developer time and loss of their motivation. Sometimes in such situations the answer is (A), but not always. It depends. How much money you got? how certain are you of the timeline for "finishing" the product properly? which option is riskier? How much competition you have and how likely they are to publish a product before you? What could having a real customer teach you about your product? What do you need in order to get the next round of investment? This is just an example, but IMO product graveyard is filled with great maintainable and reliable code no one had a chance to use. I love software and I'm really not disregarding its importance, I just think it's not always the most important thing.

slumber86 4y ago

>Sometimes providing a bad product is only relative to the competition (which may have a worse product). Eventually will came someone with a truly good product and distrupt the market

croes 4y ago
Or this company is bought up, which was there first and therefore has the larger financial reserves.
amitport 4y ago
will they? In some fields having a good business and regulatory relationship with the customers (e.g., hospitals, DoD, banks, etc.,) is much tougher than building the product. There are many barriers in place and these fields are not so easily disrupted (having a superior product is definitely not enough). Also note that having a bad product now that is better than the competition does not mean you cease to improve.
- blowski 4y ago
  Exactly. I've worked in companies dominating a particular niche. Everything about the technology is "terrible" from an engineer's perspective, and yet nothing shifts their dominance. A massive rewrite that damages customer relationships is more risky than doing nothing to improve it.

Joel_Mckay 4y ago

>"maintainable and reliable" are overrated That is popular opinion among the unemployed, as hoisting that BS on your project lead has real world consequences after your code audit. =)

mattmanser 4y ago
It was Facebook's philosophy and also Twitter used to go down a lot in the early days. So I'm not sure I'd agree with your statement. It depends on your company culture.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Both are in a strong first mover / network effect industry (social). It's definitely an optimization in certain cases.
- Joel_Mckay 4y ago
  In general, a well planned API allowed Facebook to integrate a lot of 3rd party features to attract more users. Simply put, a messy standard is still a standard.
amitport 4y ago
Here is a quick CEO dilemma: You have startup with about 4 people, you did a quick prototype, showed it to some potential customers and the worse has happened: They want it! and they want it now! The head engineer says it's all just a temp hack, it is completely shitty, they could give it to costumers but then the maintenance will be impossible, they will need months to add any new features on top of it, they will probably waste all their time on fixing bugs, and they'll quit if they have to maintain it for long. What would you do? (A) continue develop until you have a nice maintainable product, or (B) sell the product now and face the consequence of wasted developer time and loss of their motivation. Sometimes in such situations the answer is (A), but not always. It depends. How much money you got? how certain are you of the timeline for "finishing" the product properly? which option is riskier? How much competition you have and how likely they are to publish a product before you? What could having a real customer teach you about your product? What do you need in order to get the next round of investment? This is just an example, but IMO product graveyard is filled with great maintainable and reliable code no one had a chance to use. I love software and I'm really not disregarding its importance, I just think it's not always the most important thing.