3 ms·
It's a live service. If it "serves clients globally" with the minimal basic functionality at launch, then that's a valid launch. But that's achieved by being a
by Jare 3y ago
It's a live service. If it "serves clients globally" with the minimal basic functionality at launch, then that's a valid launch. But that's achieved by being a mess under the hood ("technical debt"-like stuff), it probably is expensive to operate, hard and brittle to maintain, and very difficult and slow to extend and expand.
That hardly meets all the requirements of a global and ambitious live service that has to move fast to gain traction against established, experienced and aggressive competitors.
It's a valid tradeoff and a successful launch, but it's ok to say it's "not properly built" for what comes next.
- vouwfietsman 3y ago"technical debt"-like stuff Again, what is this based on. Mostly on the fact that they reused existing parts to build a new service? Why is this alone something to frown upon and conclude it is achieved by being "a mess under the hood"? Maybe it is a mess, maybe it isn't. There's no reason to conclude this, other than the fact that there was reuse. Hence purism. EDIT: actually the software devs mention introducing tech-debt themselves, my bad.