[aryehof]

This seems to assume that any endeavor in software is something entirely established from scratch. There are no patterns, experiences or reusable parts that can be relied on. A hack at it until it works methodology.

Accordingly, it seems to imply that we as developers can’t be accountable for anything but effort. It’s a sad condemnation of our industry, and at odds with any (normal) commercial undertaking that has limited resources that must be allocated among competing alternatives.

Any real manager knows the basics of calculating the best choice amongst competing alternatives by establishing projected cashflows and calculating the PV (present value) of each. But not for software - we’re too special.

(normal) - one that can sustain itself on a commercial basis, rather than just on injected capital or borrowed funds.

[kcexn]

I think this talk speaks to an idea that is true for early stage and small businesses. That is software development is a strategic investment not a tactical one. Maybe I don't need a product database and an API just yet, I could use a spreadsheet. But I choose to do it because software can enable teams to capitalize on opportunities more effectively.

Of course, once software becomes mature there will be tactical decisions in the margins. But greenfield software is usually a strategic decision.

[cjfd]

I am not sure this comment it is in any way related to the article it is commentating on. To name one example the comment complains about the absence of PV calculations while the article actually specifically describes this.

[Lionga]

100% bullshit speak from agile coach who has 0 idea how software development actually works, but wants to sell C Level the new shiny idea.