5 ms·
Either way you’re still fulfilling business requirements. If there’s a more efficient way to serve the same goal, you’re talking optimisation, and that absolute
by h0l0cube 4y ago
Either way you’re still fulfilling business requirements. If there’s a more efficient way to serve the same goal, you’re talking optimisation, and that absolutely aligns with a smaller code base (again the actual point of the article), but not ‘less features’
- kqr 4y agoWell, sometimes it's better for the business with a feature present, sometimes with the feature absent, sometimes with the feature exchanged for another that's even better. It all depends on the feature in question and the business context.
- h0l0cube 4y agoAnd to my original point: that a business requirement adds more potential bugs is not sufficient to obviate implementing it. The only sufficient argument is that it doesn’t provide the product owner as much value as it costs to implement and maintain, but rarely is the developer in a position to judge that - they just provide the cost estimates and the PO can decide if they want to wear it or not.