|
|
|
|
|
|
by ajross
139 days ago
|
|
|
> inefficient but working FWIW, an inefficient but working product is pretty much the definition of a startup MVP. People are getting hung up on the fact that it doesn't beat gcc and clang, and generalizing to the idea that such a thing can't possibly be useful. But clearly it can, and is. This builds and boots Linux. A putative MVP might launch someone's dreams. For $20k! The reflexive ludditism is kinda scary actually. We're beyond the "will it work" phase and the disruption is happening in front of us. I was a luddite 10 months ago. I was wrong. |
|
|
It depends on what kind of start-up we're talking about.
A compiler start-up probably should show some kind of efficiency gain even in an MVP. As in: we're insanely efficient in this part of the work, but we're still missing all other functionalities but have a clear path to implementing the rest.
This is more like: It's inefficient, and the code is such a mess that I have no idea on how to improve on it.
As per the blog improvements were attempted but that only started a game of whack-a-mole with new problems.
If on the other hand you're talking about Claude Teams for writing code as an MVP: the outcome is more like proof that the approach doesn't work and you need humans in the loop.