←back to thread

388 points replyifuagree | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
tyingq ◴[] No.37966114[source]
Dev teams have choices though. They can choose to use existing 3rd party code, services, etc, to accelerate development or not. They can choose some amount of non-functional requirements. They can choose the amount of "future proofing", abstraction, etc. And on and on...many choices that would drive timelines, trade speed for quality, longevity, maintainability, or cost, and so on.
replies(1): >>37966152 #
danaris ◴[] No.37966152[source]
But unless that 3rd party code, and those services, have already been discovered, evaluated, and learned by that particular dev team, integrating them might take more time than building something from scratch that meets the specific requirements at hand.

And if it's built in-house, that means that in addition to being much more tailored to the organization's needs, it can be much more easily changed as those needs evolve.

This doesn't mean that I think it's always better to roll your own, of course; there are lots of instances where that counts as "reinventing the wheel." But it's absolutely not as simple as "just use something that's already out there and it will be faster and work just as well."

replies(2): >>37966213 #>>37966523 #
1. tyingq ◴[] No.37966213[source]
I wasn't suggesting that example was a magic bullet. Just that it is one of many choices that drive an estimate...down OR up. I agree there are cases where 3rd party software doesn't help. I think it would be pretty rare for a team to have zero choices in their control that would change an estimate.