[drzaiusx11]

I've had to slowly and painfully learn the lesson that early on in a company's lifycycle it doesn't really matter how terrible the code is as long as it mostly works. There are of course exceptions like critical medical applications and rocket/missile guidance systems but as a general rule code quality is only a problem when it inevitably bites you much farther down the line, usually when customers start jumping ship when it's obvious you can't scale or reach uptime contact targets. By then you'll hopefully have enough money saved from your initial lax approach to put some actual effort into shoring up the losses before they become critical. Sometimes you just get by with "good enough" for decades and no one cares. For someone that cares about the quality of their work it can be sad state of affairs, but I've seen this play out more times than I'd care to.

[genthree]

> There are of course exceptions like critical medical applications and rocket/missile guidance systems but as a general rule code quality is only a problem when it inevitably bites you much farther down the line, usually when customers start jumping ship when it's obvious you can't scale or reach uptime contact targets.

My experience is it hits both new-feature velocity and stability (or the balance between those two) really early, but lots of managers don't realize that this feature that's taking literal months could have been an afternoon with better choices earlier on (because they're not in a position to recognize those kinds of things). For that matter, a lot of (greener) developers probably don't recognize when the thing that's a whole-ass project for them could have been toggling a feature flag and setting a couple config entries in the correct daemon, with better architecture, because... they don't even know what sort of existing bulletproof daemon ought to be handling this thing that somehow, horrifically, ended up in their application layer.

So the blame never gets placed where it belongs, and the true cost of half-assed initial versions is never accounted for, nor is it generally appreciated just how soon the bill comes due (it's practically instantly, in many cases).

[drzaiusx11]

There are phases in a company's lifecycle which carries different weights associated with code quality depending on factors like the domain, how many customers you have, what your risk aversion is etc. I'm just saying don't build a cathedral when a mole hill will do. If the product doesn't work that's another story, it still needs to stand up without falling over when you look at it sideways and having only juniors would be a good way to get the latter. Use basic design principles, and proven architectures but don't sweat things like code coverage, reinventing wheels because you think you can do it better than something you can just grab off the shelf rn. It'll inevitably be a bit of a hodgepodge in the beginning but that's ok. Consider early code as "throwaway", don't spend your limited time rewriting anything already working "better" unless you actually have the leisure to do so (few actually do, and even fewer realize they don't)