←back to thread

Do the simplest thing that could possibly work

(www.seangoedecke.com)
1070 points dondraper36 | 1 comments | 29 Aug 25 19:05 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hinkley ◴[29 Aug 25 19:55 UTC] No.45068652[source]▶
One of the biggest, evergreen arguments I’ve had in my career revolves around the definition of “works”.

“Just because it works doesn’t mean it isn’t broken.” Is an aphorism that seems to click for people who are also handy in the physical world but many software developers think doesn’t sound right. Every handyman has at some time used a busted tool to make a repair. They know they should get a new one, and many will make an excuse to do so at the next opportunity (hardware store trip, or sale). Maybe 8 out of ten.

In software it’s probably more like 1 out of ten who will do the equivalent effort.

replies(5): >>45068811 #>>45068978 #>>45069113 #>>45069475 #>>45070924 #
Aurornis ◴[29 Aug 25 21:15 UTC] No.45069475[source]▶
One of the worst periods of my career was at a company that had a team who liked to build prototypes. They would write a hasty proof-of-concept and then their boss would parade it in front of the executives. It would be deployed somewhere and connected to a little database so it technically "worked" when they tried it.

Then the executives would be stunned that it was done so quickly. The prototype team would pass it off to another team and then move on to the next prototype.

The team that took over would open the project and discover that it was really a proof of concept, not a working site. They wouldn't include basic things like security, validation, error messages, or any of the hundred things that a real working product requires before you can put it online.

So the team that now owned it would often have to restart entirely, building it within the structures used by the rest of our products. The executives would be angry because they saw it "work" with their own eyes and thought the deployment team was just complicating things.

replies(3): >>45069860 #>>45070613 #>>45076645 #
anonymars ◴[29 Aug 25 23:41 UTC] No.45070613[source]▶
Thousand-yard stare flashback: "Why is this taking months to make this work? John and James built us the first version in 2 weeks"
replies(2): >>45070893 #>>45078401 #
1. hinkley ◴[30 Aug 25 22:07 UTC] No.45078401[source]▶
It’s been a long time since I worked with people whose previous gig was turning trumped up Excel spreadsheets into real applications two years past the Last Responsible Moment. It’s kind of up there with diabetics not going to the doctor until they’re about to lose a foot. You’ve admitted you have a problem long after we can help you thrive. Now we are just trying to minimize loss of function.