3 ms·
Agree with everything in this blog except the premise Move fast and break things was never about breaking production by being cavalier with your code. It
by pfarrell 4y ago
Agree with everything in this blog except the premise
Move fast and break things
was never about breaking production by being cavalier with your code. It means to don't let inertia accrue, don't fail to challenge assumptions, don't let fear of pushback prevent you from exploring the best course of action.
Way easier to achieve in a small organization.
edit: Did a bit of digging and I may be wrong here. In an interview in 2014 [0], when Facebook was changing their motto to "move fast with stable infrastructure", Zuckerberg said
"As developers, moving quickly was so important, we would even tolerate a few bugs to do it..."
I've always interpreted like I originally wrote, but that's not in sync with being ok shipping bugs.
0: https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/zuckerberg-move-fast-and-break-things-isnt-how-we-operate-anymore/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/zuckerberg-move-fast-and-br...
- thedg 4y agoInteresting! Well you are right - those are great things to break!
- deltree7 4y agoExactly, the 'break things' part is there to take the fear out of the developer to take more risks. It's complimenting the culture of move fast. Too many orgs don't move fast because of the fear of breaking things.
- hbrn 4y ago1. You will never be able to fix all bugs. There's plenty of bugs in your software right that that you are simply not aware of. 2. Bug fixing has diminishing returns and exponential costs. If you accept these two axioms, Zuck's quote makes perfect sense. And certain bugs are simply not worth fixing because cost of fixing it is higher than cost of having it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]