|
|
|
|
|
by creyes
2198 days ago
|
|
I think I disagree with this. I think the short-term harm of this kind of tech debt is more substantial than you're leading on. "Causing myself problems for the future" might be true, but that future could be in a week when you need to pivot because of user testing, a shift in the market, product market fit etc. I think the mistake you're making is conflating "getting code written now" with expediency. Adding/removing features and shifting when necessary are "expediency." That's the value of a thorough test suite. |
|
These solutions will break, and if monitoring is skipped will break at 2 AM when customers really start using the product.
These situations can be avoided with better product research and a stronger emphasis on design, but these are also the approaches large established companies take who can't afford to lose customer trust, and will gladly build a product on a 2 year time horizon.
As a startup you need to weigh the risk of failure, the need for direct customer engagement, and limited resources against the risk of losing customer trust. If you're a startup making a new DB, then you're product lifespan is approximately equal to the time until your first high level customer failure or poor jepsen test. A new consumer startup, may simply be able to patch scaling issues as they emerge rather than investing in a billion user infra from the get go.