[blunte]

You get an outcome appropriate for the risk assumed. The capitalist business world values speed of development over reduction of risk.

That's why at many companies, whatever tools and languages allow you to get an MVP out the door before a competitor are not merely accepted but are often celebrated and lauded.

When risk really matters, such as the commercial flight industry, the pace moves much slower. It takes comparatively forever for new features to reach the market because the cost of mistakes is so significant (human life). If business behaved the way regulated commercial flight behaved, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Pointing to open source or expressive languages as a source of complexity is, obviously to me, a red herring. The failure is our lack of rigorous engineering practices - those practices we gave up in the interest of beating our competitors to market.

You don't even have to look very far back in time to recall when software was expected to be correct upon delivery. Nowadays, particularly with online patching, we are totally accustomed to bugs and frequent fixes. Only a decade ago this was unheard of. The cost of reprinting manuals, burning new CDs (or gasp stacks of floppies) and shipping those out to all customers was so prohibitive that it was worth delaying release until all important features were in place and a full series of tests had been performed.

It's our behavior and expectations that got us where we are, not the tools. And probably there's no going back. This is the age of instant, so we'll do our best to adapt. Ironically, the human who used to have to BE the integration between his/her software tools is now the monitor making sure that the automated integrations are managed properly when an unexpected situation arises. And now we've built new layers of logging tools to help us spot these situations. But we're still stuck managing the processes...

[majormajor]

> That's why at many companies, whatever tools and languages allow you to get an MVP out the door before a competitor are not merely accepted but are often celebrated and lauded.

The linked article has some points I agree strongly with, but I disagree in its approach to tools. An MVP that's out the door as soon as possible is unlikely to have the sort of incidental complexity tech debt that kills projects. It can't, because the focus was on shipping.

A quick prototype for an MVP is great, get stuff out the door as soon as possible. If your app needs some javascript, write it however lets you get it out the door the quickest - if that means importing someone else's big framework, fine.

I think the secret is more akin to keep _your own code_ as minimal as possible. Your infrastructure and stack should respect the M part of MVP just as much as the product should.

Cause I rarely see true MVPs. I see "ok in order to scale to a million users in the first year, we're going to need x, y, and z on top of...". And then you're not just importing someone else's JS code and writing your business logic on top. Now you're building several systems that have to work together correctly even as they get modified independently in the future, and so in the process you're encoding a bunch of assumptions about your business that the MVP hasn't actually proved out yet! And that's tech debt of the deadly sort.

We're far away from having tools that will prevent a dev from building something overly complicated if they really really want to. Instead, we have to prevent it by always asking the hard questions "do we really need this right now" and not being afraid to look like the fun police.

[blunte]

That's the catch. The MVP becomes the future product. We basically start with a "what can you get me by date X" codebase, and then we're forever in the "ok, what can you get me by Y" cycle. It's a long time before the builders get a real opportunity to go back and do things right.

If the MVP is successful, that success almost guarantees a continuation of the risky practices. If it's not successful, it probably means the jig is up and the code goes into /dev/null.

I don't have a lot of big team experience. But in my limited experience working with other devs, I've seen a mixture of the builders and the doers. But what I've seen in almost every case (except for the too-much-cash-flow .com cases, which are largely a thing of the past... perhaps replaced with VC funded frenzy behavior) is management that doesn't want to spend any more time on a feature than is "absolutely" necessary. And they have comparisons to offer - other companies that did the thing within a certain timeframe (unrealistic or MVPish).

It's true though, the tools we use aren't really project development tools; they're still mostly get-it-done tools. We probably would be well served with commercial (funded, supported) components and frameworks that devs work with. At least some of the obvious mistakes wouldn't be repeated.

But then we return to the realities of the modern business world. Project budgets are compared to competitors, and there's always some competitor that has outsourced a project for 1/5 of what we suggest it should take, or they've bought a COTS kit and "tailored" it for their needs. Basically, the management expectations have become quite unrealistic. Ultimately, it's easier to change jobs than to effect a change of understanding and behavior in a company. In a techie way, it's a race to the bottom.

The alternative is to build a side project that isn't total garbage. If enough of us do that, we reshape the expectations of users.