Adapt or die: don’t try to rewrite history techniques – instead of around

  • Adapt or die: don’t try to rewrite history techniques – instead of around
    Independent.t. E.
    This is the third part of a three-part series on the technology choices that we made as a startup in the first year of existence, and the consequences of that choice. In part one, I discussed our key early decision: not to build any technology and just use existing tools. In part two, I discussed our decision to create a minimum Viable product (MVP) without worrying about long-term architecture.
    https://www.independent.ie/business/technology/adapt-or-die-dont-try-to-rewrite-your-tech-history-work-around-instead-37176122.html
    https://www.independent.ie/incoming/article37176620.ece/f2187/AUTOCROP/h342/Depositphotos_Tech.jpg

  • Email

This is the third part of a three-part series on the technology choices that we made as a startup in the first year of existence, and the consequences of that choice. In part one, I discussed our key early decision: not to build any technology and just use existing tools. In part two, I discussed our decision to create a minimum Viable product (MVP) without worrying about long-term architecture.

But now, when the person is running and is already working with Martha, and made a valuable sales tool in forming your own first trial of the test, we need to start thinking long term.

One of the ways that we have made our lives easier, and give yourself the cover to make more strategic technology decisions, not opening of public registration, but.

Instead, we are focused on growing our community and work with them to build the best product – the proof of that pudding will come out of the oven until later this year.

Building a business is all about borrowing. There is no other way to do it. You need to invest in the market offer before you can reap the rewards.

Startup technology takes on “debt” in various forms (strangely, traditional business loans, almost never seen start – UPS too risky). Angel investors and venture capitalists invest in companies because they hope that it will generate huge profits.

Their “debt” is paid in the increased value of the shares of the company.

It is also repaid in connection, that the Executive office shall provide these new shareholders, who must be brought on Board (and onboard) as valuable members of the leadership team. This debt is not easy to solve, and the interest will quickly accumulate, if both parties undermines trust.

But another form of debt is called ‘technical debt’. It’s just as real as financial debt, and has a much greater impact on the business. Technical debt is a balance between high quality design and short-term business needs.

Facebook provides us a good example. The original version of the system was built using programming language called PHP (originally an acronym of ‘personal page’).

This language is not seen as acceptable for serious enterprise software development. It has many design flaws, compared to something like java or C# (C sharp’), both of which have been carefully designed by talented software engineers at Sun Microsystems and Microsoft, respectively. But it was good enough for Mark Zuckerberg to create the first version of Facebook.

Later, Facebook is stuck with millions of lines of code written in PHP, and there is no way to fix of the accumulated debts they represented. They faced performance and scale issues because PHP was weak, where they need to be strong. It is urgent to find a solution.

At this point, there is often called in the engineering team ‘to rewrite’. Throw out all the old stuff, and rebuild from scratch. All this will be much better the second time around now that we know what we really need – the promised land awaits! If you’ve ever been involved in the deployment of a new software system to replace the old one, you will know how painful it can be. Most of these projects end in failure, and many column inches are written on hundreds of millions of euros, dollars and pounds wasted.

As an entrepreneur running a startup, you will face this choice one day, and you should reject it harshly. Such a project will always end in failure.

Distinguished IBM engineer Fred Brooks, who led the team that designed many of the original computer, calls it the ‘second action’. Architects get so excited about the opportunity to create something new and shiny that they were lost in a maze of their own complexity.

If it did something useful to do, it will be years late, far over budget, and almost do not work. A large Corporation or a government body can survive such a catastrophe, but the startup would be long dead.

You are in direct competition with other startups (probably better funded) for market share. If they can run faster, providing better technology before, you will lose.

What to do about Facebook PHP? They have kept language and rewrote Fund. They create new internal dialect of PHP called HipHop that was faster and more scalable, and can pick them up to billions of users.

Yes, they could hire a lot of candidates and doctors of science for this and You will not be able to do it, but you can learn a simple lesson: do not rewrite. Instead, to adapt.

Facebook is stuck with PHP, and they will always pay for the sloppiness of language, but they have mitigated most of the problems to figure out a workaround.

This was the best business decision, and allowed them to continue to add features and excelling and growing. Growth and income is a wonderful solution to technical problems!

Knowing what you’ll encounter at this moment, anyway, to make it less painful to be a little more flexible, so that technical debt does not cost you so much that it puts your abilities to perform in danger? Unfortunately, to Quote Fred Brooks, no silver bullet. This is a fundamental compromise solution business You can’t avoid. Instead, you should ask what the criteria for decision-making?

You (a) build as much as possible, as quickly as possible, technical’t care about the consequences to get dominant market share, or you (b) build a platform that gives you many years of flexibility, but means that your entry into the market is delayed so much that others might get ahead of you?

With the first option, you could increase the advantage, but end up losing in the long run, when more reliable competitors gradually build more appropriate and better technical characteristics (e.g., Google, later, the visitor in the search engine space). Or, you could also be happy, and, like Facebook, will eventually become so dominant that You can’t get out, or with sufficient market share to justify a worthy purchase larger companies.

With the second, you can create the best technology, but never to break into the market because You can’t force clients to move to a decision (e.g., betamax vs VHS – the old classic). On the other hand, if your technology is much better and you can continue to put on high speed (because you have low technical debt), then you can break monopolies and take over the market (such as iPhone and Android killing Nokia).

Both strategies are viable, and I think determining whether your market is new and growing, or old and in need of disruption.

To go with (a) if new and growing – an early lead in market share is largely all that matters.

To go with (b), if old and in need of disruption – you need great innovation and execution to beat the staff.

We more b) than a). This is an extreme point of the strategic spectrum. In the middle of this spectrum is not a good place to be – you have to choose, but, of course, tactical rifle at each end.

In the case voxgig, our space technology conferences. There are many employees, and we think it’s time for a little breakdown. But we must be able to perform much faster than the operators on the technology side, if we wanted to accelerate behind them. However, we must also work with trial customers to understand their needs, so we have to build something.

Our choice of technology, post-MVP, is, therefore, to build a platform to reduce technical debt, but not enough to affect our ability today to deliver useful software. Instead of trying to build the perfect platform, and cover all use cases and scenarios, we build a simple platform that are developed in alternating stages of the object development.

On the level of project management it works like this: first we create the infrastructure platform. Then we work with trial customers to create a function. This work examines the holes in our platform (the functionality that is missing), and then we’ll go back to the platform to improve.

We will continue this cycle for the next year. But this year, as the Engineering team grows, we will eventually build both platforms and features in parallel, and then to move faster. Our Platform will reduce the impact of technical debt and make it possible.

There’s technical risk is if we get the architecture of the platform is not so, we end up stuck, like it can’t be changed without rewriting. Then to slow down in the implementation of our facilities. It always happens to some extent, but you want to stay flexible enough to keep ahead of the curve.

One of the technical tactics that we use what is called architecture ‘microservices’ – we break our platform in a large number of small replacement parts. It is very effective, while respecting the technical debt under control.

Stepping back to make the right choice of technology is not about technology at all. It is about understanding the dynamics of your market and how you will use technology to cope with this dynamics. Pro tip: if your Director does not put this as a key decision, they are not technical.

(Update Bulletin: 2,935 subscribers – nearly 3000! Open rate 11pc. Next week I’ll do a full review on our mailing list growth strategy in one year, and the results – and the main mistake that I made as a leader.)

Richard Roger is the founder voxgig. He is a former co-founder of Nearform, a consulting firm based in Waterford.

Online Business Classes