[lylejantzi3rd]

> it doesn't sit well with bizdev or project managers

To be fair, it makes everything twice as expensive. Managers are always going to reflexively push back against that, even if the new feature covers that cost and more.

[richk449]

> To be fair, it makes everything twice as expensive.

The article argues it makes it less expensive to reach any specific quality level (above some threshold).

The threshold isn’t really addressed in the article, but it is implied that for any realistic quality need, the write twice approach will be cheaper.

To conclude it makes everything twice as expensive, you have to ignore any cost except the initial write. That’s not realistic.

[edflsafoiewq]

The second time doesn't cost as much as the first.

[jrvarela56]

And the first is cheaper than a ‘regular single version’ bc you build it with the thought that you will throw it away.

[nkozyra]

You throw it away but in truth much of it survives in a much better design.

[euroderf]

From the article:

> Rewriting the solution only took 25% the time as the initial implementation

Seems reasonable.

[lylejantzi3rd]

> Seems reasonable.

Not to the manager, which is the point, not how long it takes to rewrite it.

[ozim]

What hits hard is realizing that most features are not worth it. They just shouldn’t be developed.

Unfortunately biznes wants features and more of them and if possible for free.

[kmoser]

I find half my job as a developer is writing code, and the other half is advising clients on which features not to implement.