| Because perfect is the enemy of good. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good) And it’s not just that perfection takes longer to achieve; the estimate of how long it will take to reach it will be less reliable than that of multiple smaller steps. Because of that, I think one can even argue good is the enemy of good enough. As a simple example, a product is more likely to see the addition of, first, one report, than a second, a third, etc, than the addition of a good report builder. For the former, each step is relatively simple, and first value will be delivered sooner. For the latter, you’ll have to answer questions about what the full range of to be supported reports would look like. Even if you, up-front, know you’ll need to support tens of different kinds of report, it may be hard to argue that you need a report builder even if that seems to be the better choice to get to the end result. If you do end up with a report builder, it likely will be one designed by and written for developers. As an example, look at headers and footers in Excel, where, I think to this day, you have to type && to get a single &: https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2018/sep/excel-h.... |