(no title)
creyes | 5 years ago
I think the mistake you're making is conflating "getting code written now" with expediency. Adding/removing features and shifting when necessary are "expediency." That's the value of a thorough test suite.
creyes | 5 years ago
I think the mistake you're making is conflating "getting code written now" with expediency. Adding/removing features and shifting when necessary are "expediency." That's the value of a thorough test suite.
lumost|5 years ago
These solutions will break, and if monitoring is skipped will break at 2 AM when customers really start using the product.
These situations can be avoided with better product research and a stronger emphasis on design, but these are also the approaches large established companies take who can't afford to lose customer trust, and will gladly build a product on a 2 year time horizon.
As a startup you need to weigh the risk of failure, the need for direct customer engagement, and limited resources against the risk of losing customer trust. If you're a startup making a new DB, then you're product lifespan is approximately equal to the time until your first high level customer failure or poor jepsen test. A new consumer startup, may simply be able to patch scaling issues as they emerge rather than investing in a billion user infra from the get go.
jmchuster|5 years ago
The value of tests amplify with the number of people adjusting the code, and with the time range over which this is happening. These are both conditions that minimize themselves at early-stage startups.
Now, of course, caveat is, you need to know how to strike the right balances and tradeoffs as an engineer to get the right results for the right amount of effort. But that's what startup engineering is about.