"a lot of engineers think that code quality is important to building a successful product," but "the two have nothing to do with each other."
"It really has very little to do with how well it was architected," he said."
"Just focus on what we're trying to build and whom we're trying to build for," he said. "All this code can be thrown away tomorrow."
"Technology is here to serve us, and if we have an important reason for being and an important purpose, then we can make it that technology serve us," he added."
Clean, elegant code and flawless architecture are not the primary determinants of a product's success. Engineering efforts should prioritize solving real user problems and maintaining clear product purpose rather than perfecting syntax or staying on every technological trend. Historical evidence shows that products with messy codebases can still dominate when they meet user needs, exemplified by YouTube's success despite poor architecture. Teams can refactor or replace code later, so short-term focus on delivering value and addressing customer problems yields greater returns than chasing architectural purity. Technology choices should serve the product's mission, not define it.
Read at Business Insider
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]