|
|
|
|
|
|
by artharrison
4482 days ago
|
|
|
I agree that I should be looking for people who produce quality work, but I also think there's some flexibility to the 'interchangeable pieces' part of the argument. Here's the thing: Building anything ends up being a very iterative process. From my personal experience, by the time one moves from the prototype/beta phase upwards of 90% of the original code/design base is thrown away, redone, etc. Since what I'm really looking for here is the first-cut that allows for the validation of the idea and the on-boarding of the first few (hundred-)thousand users, I think there could be some advantages to a little shorter-term thinking; if-and-only-if that means I'm able to deliver that first cut to market sooner than if I were to focus on the stability of the team upfront. Don't get me wrong, I'm still wavering on my opinion of this (hence this entire thread). But I am really enjoying / appreciating the various methodologies. |
|
|
From my experience what starts off as a simple proof of concept/prototype that is done quick and dirty to validate an idea, ends up being the actual production code. This is due in part to clients that come and say: "well it works, why rewrite it? you can just fix bugs if they come up", making you have to maintain what was originally meant to be a throw away implementation.
While right now your intentions might be to rewrite, I do believe that you might reconsider this decision once you have a couple hundred users to please, who all want new features or bugs fixed. Now I do not know what your idea is and how critical time to market is for you but I would recommend that you consider removing non-essential features to get it out quicker rather than skipping quality.