4 ms·
"So it was successful enough for long enough " Which doesn't necessarily make it a good choice at any point. It just says it wasn't enough of a bad technical ch
by rat9988 3y ago
"So it was successful enough for long enough " Which doesn't necessarily make it a good choice at any point. It just says it wasn't enough of a bad technical choice to make the product sink.
- emodendroket 3y agoOK, sure, it's not ironclad proof that it was the right decision. But it's certainly not proof it was the wrong decision when it was made.
- namaria 3y ago"It works and makes money" is at the root of so much shoddy workmanship in software I think you're making a different point than what you're trying to.
- emodendroket 3y agoThe argument of TFA is that starting with serverless and evolving away from it bit by bit as it is revealed to be necessary is a sound strategy most of the time. Whatever you may think of that argument, “I have been hired to optimize projects built using serverless and get them off of it” is not a rebuttal.
- namaria 3y agoThanks for rehashing how this thread got started for me?
- emodendroket 3y agoWhat is this different point you think I’m making then?
- namaria 3y ago>this is a great way to prototype ideas or get a first version of the product out there As long as it works and makes money it excuses shoddiness. Publishing a draft to fish for revenue is the reason we have so much poor software running out there. After it's in production, you will not be able to make a business case to re-make it right.
- emodendroket 3y agoApparently you will since the other guy in this thread has made this a specialization.
- re-thc 3y agoThis has nothing to do with software. Same applies for things like buildings where the developers get away with so many defects even after people pay huge $$$ for it.