[tech-ninja]

> In _most_ cases that means delivering code that you should be able to confidently prove satisfies the requirements like the OP mentioned

That is an insane distinction that you are trying to do there. In which cases delivering code that doesn't satisfy the requirements would solve a business problem?

[claar]

IMO, it's not insane at all - I didn't understand this until I moved from developer to executive.

Solving the business need has precedence over technical correctness.

Satisfying "what I think the requirements are" without considering the business need causes most code rework in my experience.

[adrianmonk]

I will make up some numbers for the sake of illustration. Suppose it takes you half as long to develop code if you skip the part where you make sure it works. And suppose that when you do this, 75% of the time it does work well enough to achieve its goal.

So then, in a month you can either develop 10 features that definitely work or 20 features that have a 75% chance of working. Which one of these delivers more value to your business?

That depends on a lot of things, like the severity of the consequences for incorrect software, the increased chaos of not knowing what works and what doesn't, the value of the features on the list, and the morale hit from slowly driving your software engineers insane vs. allowing them to have a modicum of pride in their work.

Because it's so complex, and because you don't even have access to all the information, it's hard to actually say which approach delivers more value to the business. But I'm sure it goes one way some of the time and the other way other times.

I definitely prefer producing software that I know works, but I don't think that it's an absurd idea the other way delivers more business value in certain cases.

[p2detar]

I didn’t read it this way, but I admit the comment is somewhat vague. I thought GP meant that not all solutions require delivering code. In my job when I get a support inquiry, I first try to think what exactly is the customer’s end-goal. Often support didn’t get what the customer’s real pain is. Some solutions are reduced to pointing them to some unusual workflow that solved their problem. This way I don’t need to tinker any code at all.

[trevor-e]

No, what I meant is sometimes the solution is not delivering any code at all.

Many times in my career, after understanding the problem at hand and who initiated it, I realized the solution is actually one of:

1) a people/organizational problem, not technical 2) doesn't make sense to code a complicated system when it could be a simple Google Sheet 3) the person actually has a completely different problem 4) we already have a solution they didn't know about

My issue with the OP is that it highly emphasizes delivering code. We are not meant to be code monkeys, we are solving problems at the end of the day. Many people I've met throughout my career forget that and immediately jump into writing code because they think that's their job.

[nrhrjrjrjtntbt]

When you can ship Redis for example instead of rolling your own cache.

[theshrike79]

Not all problems are "work" vs "doesn't work".

We're not talking about making a calculator that can't calculate 1+1. This might be a website that's a bit slow and janky to use.

25% of users go away because it's shit, but 75% stay. And it would've too much effort to push the jank to zero and retain a 100%.

A website that takes juuuust too long to load still "satisfies requirements" in most cases, especially when making loading instant carries a significant extra cost the customer isn't willing to pay for.