4 ms·
I would argue that the reason companies ship junk is they can’t really afford the costs of slowing down and doing it right. Even mentioning the true cost would
by pylua 3y ago
I would argue that the reason companies ship junk is they can’t really afford the costs of slowing down and doing it right.
Even mentioning the true cost would shut down most deals.
- Silhouette 3y agoThat is certainly a popular claim but I question how true it really is. I find modern development processes with this emphasis are often comically inefficient. In particular a lot of people who are used to working under those processes seem to dramatically underestimate how much drag the rushed decisions and accumulating tech debt will add to their entire project and how quickly that drag effect will be felt.
- pylua 3y agoI don’t think it is related to design decisions necessarily — I think it is more related to coding to the most common case when there are many more edge cases exposed when you scale the number of users. I mostly witness hurried scenarios in software contracting where each contractor tries to do the bare minimum to meet the definition of demoable. They then leave the project and mark it as another success.
- Silhouette 3y agoLimiting scope at first is reasonable and often necessary. It's the basis of the MVP idea that has stood the test of time. I wouldn't describe a well-made product with limited scope as junk though. By junk I mean compromising quality and taking on excessive tech debt, not just starting small because you have to start somewhere.