[tormeh]

Did the products do the same thing, or was the new product something entirely different that didn't have any market fit?

In other words, what's the lesson here? Speed at all costs because you quickly figure out if the product is wanted? Or speed at all costs because bugs just don't matter?

[scarface74]

Without going into too much detail, the initial product was for the B2B market with buyers and sellers where the buyers could also be sellers. They had near total penetration on the seller’s side but they wanted to make a similar product that was buyer focused.

The lesson, for new markers that aren’t heavily regulated and the cost of bugs isn’t high (like healthcare and banking) is speed at all cost, and then once you have penetration, then start worrying about technical debt.

[tormeh]

>The lesson, for new markers that aren’t heavily regulated and the cost of bugs isn’t high (like healthcare and banking) is speed at all cost, and then once you have penetration, then start worrying about technical debt.

Sounds like wisdom. I've been thinking along those lines myself.

I wonder what this means for correctness-focused languages (functional, with static and strong typing). Personally I'm a fan of these, but it could be that they're just not desirable in most industries. I'm assuming that these languages slow you down, but I hope they don't all do that.

[scarface74]

Static and strong typing not only helps eliminate a whole class of bugs, there are also automated, guaranteed safe types of refactors that you can do with static, strongly typed languages.