[bhldev]

Depends on the business model. If you sit on the bleeding edge all the time maybe (even if you don't you should strive for the newest possible for the skills and budget if only for retention and hiring).

But if the whole point of the company is to build some generic software that's configurable then absolutely the inside and code matters because it's a hard requirement. You could build specifically to one type of configuration but it would not solve the other. And that means generic, abstractions, reuse as part of the business case not just some nice to have for clean code.

So it very much depends. It's also possible to take it too far. As for internal release dates I have always considered them bullshit ever since I heard executives talk about how they pad the time. The more layers of management the more padding and if everyone works separately in different teams the more the padding. Developers are better off ignoring internal release dates and building the best software they think possible to not compromise on quality. They can cut scope but at the end of the day the software better work. The only thing you shouldn't ignore is warning people if it will go over time. Since 50% of software goes over time that's expected.

Either it's good or it isn't either it works or it doesn't and the timescale devs are used to (sprints, days, stories etc) don't have any bearing on reality. If it takes a month more because it has to that's how long it takes. The concept of "MVP" or feature set is totally separate from a good piece of software; once you get there you can release and iterate and improve. And it's called "minimal" for a reason if you stop there your software is sunset. The features and improvements have to keep rolling.