3 ms·
I think there's a pretty wide range between 3 and 4 that is worth exploring. Maybe the real problem I have with this article is that once you peg 3 as "good eno
by klodolph 3y ago
I think there's a pretty wide range between 3 and 4 that is worth exploring. Maybe the real problem I have with this article is that once you peg 3 as "good enough" and 5 as unachievable, then there's a whole mess of interesting quality levels squeezed between the 3..5 range.
If we peg 3 as "good enough to ship and stand behind it", then I'm immediately thinking about getting the code to somewhere in the 3.5 range. After you ship, you're in a good position to revisit some of the decisions you mode. Everything's fresh, and you can go in and squash some bugs that you know are in there, expand some tests that you knew weren't as thorough as you wanted, and trim some of the crap that you realize that you don't need. Maybe it's time to do some refactoring, now that you have the big picture. Maybe it's time to chase after some performance improvements. Maybe it's time to make the integration tests faster and better.
- rudasn 3y agoAgree. I always try to remind my self: - make it - make it work - make it fast
- contravariant 3y agoMake it last?
- abenga 3y agoExcellent addition.
- hinkley 3y agoMake it work Make it right Make it fast
- rudasn 3y agoYeah even better!