Tests are how you ship fast.
If you have good tests in place you can ship a new feature without fear that it will break some other feature that you haven't manually tested yet.
It wasn't too long ago that I wrote tests for something that was shipped years ago without any automated tests. Figured it was easier doing that than hoping we won't break it.
Your tests pay for themselves the moment you want to ship a second feature without fear of breaking the first.
And that is the minimum level to aim at. If you can automate anything you do to test it right now you should.
But one thing that used to be a common design anti-pattern was the "version 2 problem". I think I first heard about it when Netscape were talking about how NN2 was a disaster, and they were finally happy with NN3 or NN4.
Often version 1 is a hastily thrown together mess of stuff, but it works and people like it. But there's lots of bad design decisions and you reach a limit with how far you can continue pushing that bad design before it gets too brittle to change. So you start on version 2, a complete rewrite to fix all the problems and you end up with something that's "technically perfect" but so overengineered, it's slow and everybody hates it, plus there are probably lots of workflow hoops to jump through to get things approved that you end up not making any progress, and possibly version 2 kills the product and/or the company.
The idea is that the "version 3" is a pragmatic compromise - the worse design problems from version 1 are gone, but you forego all the unnecessary stuff that you added in version 2, and finally have a product that customers like again (assuming you can convince them to come back and try v3 out) and you can build into future versions.
To a large degree I think this "version 2 problem" was a by product of waterfall design, it's certainly been less common since agile development became popular in the early 2000s and tooling made large scale refactoring easier, but even so I remember working somewhere with a v1 that the customers were using and a v2 that was a 3-year rewrite going on in parallel. None of the developers wanted to work on v1 even though that's what brought in the revenue, and v2 didn't have any of the benefit of the bug fixes accumulated over the years to fix very specific issues that were never captured in any of the scope documents.
- Fred Brooks, 'The Mythical Man Month' (1975)
As I rewrote it, I started pulling in more "nice to haves" or else opening up the design for the potential to support more and more future features. I eventually got to a point where it became unwieldy as it had too many open-ended architectural decisions and a lot of bloat.
I ended up scrapping this v2 before releasing it and worked on a v3 but with a more focused architecture, having some things open-ended but choosing not to pursue them yet as I knew that would just introduce unneeded bloat.
I was quite aware of the second-system effect when doing all this, but I still succumbed to it. Thankfully, the v3 rewrite didn't take as long since I was able to incorporate a lot of the v2 design decisions but scaled some of them back.
Usually levied at people who are so hyper focused on shipping a so-called MVP that is really demoware that they are driving us at a brick wall and commenting the entire way about what good time we are making.
We never did a full v3 rewrite, but it took about 4 years and many v3 redesigns of various features to get our legacy customers on board.
I feel like we keep having to reestablish known facts every two years in this field.
Wildly swinging dogmatism on how to do software development that’s so wrong you have to throw it all away - then repeating this failure loop multiple times.
Doesn’t inspire any confidence in the person I wouldn’t get them to lead a project.
Why would you be so loud and proud about all this.
Especially wild considering their product is literally an automated bug finder lol.
Well yeah. It reminds me of how I wrote an addon for WoW, while having no clue how to write GUI code, learning lua and Blizzard API as I go, and having no tools except a text editor. It took 3-4 sharp ideological shifts, till I got to reading about elm architecture, and refactored all the code into it, while using addons helping with debugging issues, using a scaffold to create throw away addons for testing details of how WoW API functions/object work, using Ace library for messages and some other things, using my another addon to track events to learn when and which events WoW fires... Near the end I was a pretty competent addon developer, but the most part of my way there I was just trying a lot of things to see what works.
> Why would you be so loud and proud about all this.
Oh, I also like to tell my story of how it was. When I finally got it work on clean elm architecture with clear separation of state, view and update, I was proud, obviously, but even before that I was proud because of Danning-Kruger. My code was a way better than the original addon, and it was becoming better and better with each sharp turn. It is funny in hindsight.
> I would NOT allow people to write tests
> now [...] we started with tests from the ground up
> but tests make a whole lot more sense when you know what you're building.
It's very true. This is a "gotcha" a lot of anti-TDDers always bring up, and yet some talk about "prototyping == good" without ever making the connection that you can do both.
It should be common sense to add common sense tests to critical components. Now they are doing TDD THEY STILL DON'T KNOW THE CRITICAL COMPONENTS. Nothing changed. They lack systems thinking.
My guess is that both are just vibecoded slop.
Sometimes your code is "just" a proof of concept, a way to test the idea. Very far from a decent product.
That is the time you ditch the code, keep the ideas (both good and bad) and start over.
It can be so refreshing making that decision to open the old code on one screen and a fresh project on the other and do it right from the start.
This whole business is a fashion industry.
I'm for one grateful for LLMs because for the first time in around 30 years there is actually genuine novelty to explore in software engineering. Ruby and nodejs weren't it.
Thanks to Vercel partnerships, many of those SaaS vendors only support Next.js as extension/integration technology on their SDKs.
MVC really changed web dev for the better, and Django/Rails trail-blazed it. It's one of the few paradigms I've seen in my career that was an unequivocal win for us.
The authors of said product eventually went on to create OutSystems, one of the very few RAD products to do Delphi/VB like application servers with graphical tooling.
It was no need for Django/Rails trail-blaze anything other than not everyone has Silicon Valey visibilty to push their ideas.
Maybe they will rewrite everything with AI by then. /s
