4 ms·

I ask this without having my own opinion on the matter: Won't those debates improve the design of the architecture? It's hard to imagine the time loss of debat

by tieTYT 12y ago

I ask this without having my own opinion on the matter: Won't those debates improve the design of the architecture? It's hard to imagine the time loss of debates being greater than the time loss of a rearchitecture.

cyorir 12y ago
I think that while having heated discussions on redesign/changing a specification can be important, it is better to try and wrap up these discussions before you move into actually implementing your project. If you have too many debates while actually working on the architecture (IMO too many of these debates take place at this phase, rather than ahead of time), then the engineers work on implementing one feature only to be told they must abandon it and start implementing another feature, etc. Consistency can be a good tool for keeping projects running on time without growing costs, even if the overall design is not as optimal as it could be.
nostrademons 12y ago
They do improve the design of the architecture, but the question is "Will they improve the design of the architecture more than shipping the product, letting it contact reality, and learning from experience?" There's an opportunity cost - debates cost time, time delays shipping, and shipping is what enables customer feedback. In my experience, customer feedback and actual experience is much more important for improving the design of the architecture than debating with other people. You can try to make your design slightly less wrong by consulting with other team members who are equally as uninformed as you, or you can get it right by going out and getting hard data.
- kromodor 12y ago
  Unfortunately there is a psychological barrier that people must pass before having the understanding of their lack of experience and the need to face reality. Only informing them about this, in some cases, is not enough. It would really be well if people realized their bias, but they rarely do.
  - dk8996 12y ago
    Very well put. Most experienced teams just execute very well and individuals can take on bigger roles while still seamlessly fitting into a bigger picture. I think there is a bit of a gut feeling when you have experience -- more likely your first step is in the right direction.
hkarthik 12y ago
The problem with the debates is that it's difficult to discern when someone is debating with real authority on the subject versus appealing to authority. A lot of engineers will say things "We need to use X, because Google, Facebook, etc use X". All the while ignoring the fact that Google and Facebook deal with massive scale, have tremendous resources to bear, and hardly get penalized by their customers when things break. The tech is only one small part of a much larger puzzle. It's often easier to suppress such debates than engage in them, especially in the early days when you don't have the luxury of time. I'm not saying it's always the right thing to do, but it's often not the wrong thing to do for a team to continue shipping at a regular pace.

by tieTYT 12y ago

cyorir 12y ago

I think that while having heated discussions on redesign/changing a specification can be important, it is better to try and wrap up these discussions before you move into actually implementing your project. If you have too many debates while actually working on the architecture (IMO too many of these debates take place at this phase, rather than ahead of time), then the engineers work on implementing one feature only to be told they must abandon it and start implementing another feature, etc. Consistency can be a good tool for keeping projects running on time without growing costs, even if the overall design is not as optimal as it could be.

nostrademons 12y ago

They do improve the design of the architecture, but the question is "Will they improve the design of the architecture more than shipping the product, letting it contact reality, and learning from experience?" There's an opportunity cost - debates cost time, time delays shipping, and shipping is what enables customer feedback. In my experience, customer feedback and actual experience is much more important for improving the design of the architecture than debating with other people. You can try to make your design slightly less wrong by consulting with other team members who are equally as uninformed as you, or you can get it right by going out and getting hard data.

kromodor 12y ago
Unfortunately there is a psychological barrier that people must pass before having the understanding of their lack of experience and the need to face reality. Only informing them about this, in some cases, is not enough. It would really be well if people realized their bias, but they rarely do.
- dk8996 12y ago
  Very well put. Most experienced teams just execute very well and individuals can take on bigger roles while still seamlessly fitting into a bigger picture. I think there is a bit of a gut feeling when you have experience -- more likely your first step is in the right direction.

hkarthik 12y ago

The problem with the debates is that it's difficult to discern when someone is debating with real authority on the subject versus appealing to authority. A lot of engineers will say things "We need to use X, because Google, Facebook, etc use X". All the while ignoring the fact that Google and Facebook deal with massive scale, have tremendous resources to bear, and hardly get penalized by their customers when things break. The tech is only one small part of a much larger puzzle. It's often easier to suppress such debates than engage in them, especially in the early days when you don't have the luxury of time. I'm not saying it's always the right thing to do, but it's often not the wrong thing to do for a team to continue shipping at a regular pace.