> a) has Hacker News/YC ever seen a startup fail because the codebase is so bad.
Yes, but it's more that the programmers are bad instead of the code. Bad code can be patched fast by a good programmer, but becomes rapidly unmaintainable by a bad programmer. A lot of techniques and style guides out there are designed to manage bad programmers.
> b) what is the best calculation to make when trading off code quality vs features?
I have two modes: prototype and production. Prototypes are disposable, and value speed/results above all else. They should be thrown away after. Treat them as a demo to get budget for a feature or a hack to solve a problem right now. Design it to be completely destroyed and replaced, instead of replaced gradually, although you can probably reuse interfaces/contracts in between these modules.
Production code is kept clean and as maintainable as possible, but keep the engineering to a minimum. If you have to ask whether something is overengineering, it probably is.
> c) do most YC startups write tests and try to write cleanish code in V1 or does none of this matter?
I'm not sure about YC but I don't write automated tests. I have a text file with all the manual tests I need to run. Features are usually scrapped hard in a startup. IMO it's better to release a broken thing to 1000 people who complain it's broken than to release a well built thing to 100 people who think it's nice but won't pay for it.
> Should we just be chucking shit at the wall and seeing what sticks? Do most startups bin v1 and jump straight to v2 once they have traction?
Rule of thumb is you need dozens, if not hundreds of prototypes, so optimize for speed and experimentation quality. You're like a prospector, looking for ore. You don't want to build an entire mine, where there is none, and you don't want to commit too hard until you know there's a sufficient number of it.
But things are different for "ramen profitable" startups, and you should start looking into how to maintain better and add features faster.
Yes, but it's more that the programmers are bad instead of the code. Bad code can be patched fast by a good programmer, but becomes rapidly unmaintainable by a bad programmer. A lot of techniques and style guides out there are designed to manage bad programmers.
> b) what is the best calculation to make when trading off code quality vs features?
I have two modes: prototype and production. Prototypes are disposable, and value speed/results above all else. They should be thrown away after. Treat them as a demo to get budget for a feature or a hack to solve a problem right now. Design it to be completely destroyed and replaced, instead of replaced gradually, although you can probably reuse interfaces/contracts in between these modules.
Production code is kept clean and as maintainable as possible, but keep the engineering to a minimum. If you have to ask whether something is overengineering, it probably is.
> c) do most YC startups write tests and try to write cleanish code in V1 or does none of this matter?
I'm not sure about YC but I don't write automated tests. I have a text file with all the manual tests I need to run. Features are usually scrapped hard in a startup. IMO it's better to release a broken thing to 1000 people who complain it's broken than to release a well built thing to 100 people who think it's nice but won't pay for it.
> Should we just be chucking shit at the wall and seeing what sticks? Do most startups bin v1 and jump straight to v2 once they have traction?
Rule of thumb is you need dozens, if not hundreds of prototypes, so optimize for speed and experimentation quality. You're like a prospector, looking for ore. You don't want to build an entire mine, where there is none, and you don't want to commit too hard until you know there's a sufficient number of it.
But things are different for "ramen profitable" startups, and you should start looking into how to maintain better and add features faster.