[bvirb]

We attempt to address this problem at work with an extra caveat to never add code "in the wrong direction" -- so it's fine (usually preferable) to have a partial implementation, as long as it's heading in the direction we'd like the more complete implementation to go in. Basically "KISS, but no hacks".

[thinkharderdev]

Yes, this is an excellent rule. I read an essay years ago (which I can't find now) about technical debt whether the author separate tech debt into two flavors which he analogized to a mortgage (good) and credit card debt (bad). Basically, getting the right design but only partially implementing it is like a mortgage, you're making a down payment on the full implementation and you can pay down the debt over time. But doing terrible hacks to "get something working" is like credit card debt. You're buying some time but will have to pay that back later (with a lot of interest).

[ehansdais]

Just curious, how would that be applied to the xslx namespace problem example given? If the full fix is to implement namespacing, what would the KISS approach be in the right direction?

[jiggawatts]

Use an off-the-shelf parser that handles namespaces. And escapes. And CData. And everything else you haven't thought of: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/701166/can-you-provide-s...

This avoids the endless whack-a-mole that you get with a partial solution such as "assume namespaces are superflous", which you almost certainly will eventually discover weren't optional.

Or some other hapless person using your terrible code will discover at 2am at night sitting alone in the office building while desperately trying to do something mission critical such as using a "simple" XML export tool to cut over ten thousand users from one Novel system to another so that the citizens of the state have a functioning government in the morning.

Ask me how I know that kind of "probably won't happen" thing will, actually, happen.

[GMoromisato]

I really like this as a guideline.