4 ms·

> But could you have built a new feature that would roll out to 50% of users in that same time? No.

• pinkmuffinere 2y ago
  If the impact of debugging is expected to be larger than building something new, then debug. Else, build something new.
  • LeifCarrotson 2y ago
    The problem is that the real impact and the perceived value of each path are not necessarily the same. Building new things is sexy and highly visible. It's easy to say about yourself "I built that cool new feature" or better, to promote "I might build something of incredible value". You're front-and-center with decision makers, shaping the future. Conversely, debugging is perceived as a cost center. "I fixed that critical infrastructure that used to work with only minor interruption" or "Maybe everything will break and you'll need me to fix it" are not nearly as exciting. Worse, the best maintenance is completely invisible, fixing problems before they are felt. You're in the background, dealing with the legacy of the past.
    • esafak 2y ago
      If your organization is like that then let them know. Suggest some leading indicators that they could track so you can take credit for your preventative work. If all else fails, then you can decide if you want to just do visible work or leave.
  • drivers99 2y ago
    More like: why fix a 5% bug when you can deploy a new bug to the other 50%