|
|
|
|
|
by wizofaus
1319 days ago
|
|
> Nobody sits down and thinks "we can save two hours now at the cost of three hours later" Perhaps not, but there're plenty of times you realise the "proper" solution that's going to leave you with well-structured code that's easy to maintain and easy to extend to likely future functionality is going to take weeks, whereas a quick'n'dirty solution that will get a bug fixed or an MVP-version of a feature implemented could be done in a few hours, and the latter option makes sense even from a technical POV because there's little certainty that the extra effort will pay off (esp. if it involves higher risk of breaking existing functionality, which is often the case).
Unfortunately it's the accumulation of such decisions and lack of time to go back and revise decisions/rewrite code that lead to unwieldy and bug-ridden codebases. |
|