Those exclamation marks are either rapid learning or swearing - possibly both.
Sometimes it’s a superpower if you take and use good advice that most people don’t follow. But there’s nearly always a reason they don’t. So you need to figure out why other people can’t, so that you can.
Here’s one of my favourites: rewrite once and throw the first away because you will anyway.
From Fred Brooks’ The Mythical Man-Month, one of the oldest books about getting software written, to Chad Fowler’s keynote about “Legacy” in software, you can find many years’ of expounding the virtues of rewriting our software - in a careful, controlled way. Keep in mind that Chad Fowler is also the guy who wrote the series telling you to never do The Big Rewrite.
So, okay, there’s some subtlety to it. What’s the right way to do it?
The Power of the Prototype
You’ve likely seen somebody, early in a big project or feature, write a quick prototype to see how it works out. If they did it well, you learned a lot of interesting things to do (or not do!)
Sometimes it’s done as a ‘spike’ - an extremely quick version of the feature, just to put something in place - more features will be added later. Sometimes it’s a pure prototype, designed for learning, but it won’t be useful later.
If your spike is done in the right place, you’ll get to keep it and build on it. Wouldn’t that always be better than a throwaway prototype?
Not at all.
A throwaway prototype will let you try out risky things that would be a bad idea if you had to keep the result. The less you know at the start, the more important it is not to keep the finished result - you want to try things that might be a terrible idea, and you don’t want any pressure to keep that terrible idea in production. Fast learning requires being able to make mistakes.
So: the more you need to learn, the more important it is to throw the result away afterward.
Learning - Fast Then Slow
Here’s the obvious next question: what if it doesn’t screw up? What if it works out well? Then is it okay to keep the result?
I think you shouldn’t. I specifically think you shouldn’t because that turns “throw the first one away” into “maybe throw the first one away.” And if you do that then you’ll want not to throw it away, because that will feel better, like more of a success.
And so instead of the most learning, instead you get something more like a non-prototype, something cautious that teaches you less but is more likely to work tolerably, not excellently.
It means you’ve built software like what you’d build if you didn’t prototype first. So you’ve thrown away your advantage.
How Many Prototypes?
Try prototyping - balance just the pencil, then the teapot, then
If one prototype is good, then is two even better? How about four? Or twelve?
The answer, of course, is, “It Depends.” That’s the answer to most software engineering questions. See how clever I am?
You, however, are clever if you then ask me, “depends on what?”
It depends on how fast you need to learn. If you’ve built the same kind of system a few times, the right number of prototypes may be zero - you may have already learned what you’re likely to from a prototype when building your earlier systems.
If you’ve never built anything remotely similar, the right number of prototypes could easily be three or four - you wouldn’t usually build more than two prototypes of the same part of the system, but you might build prototypes of several different parts of a large, complicated system. If you were building something massive like an MMORPG like World of Warcraft, there might be fifteen or more absolutely-necessary prototypes, and could easily be more.
As well, you may build a prototype and then discover that you’ve been structuring the whole problem wrong. If you start by building a highly-reliable email client, you’ll find out that the email protocol isn’t particularly reliable. That suggests prototyping an email server, which adds a step. Once you’ve done that, you’ll discover that other people’s email servers are a black hole of issues (pun intended.)
What’s the right number of prototypes for that? More than three, by the time you’re done! And that’s assuming you learn as much as possible from the prototype for each section - a good prototype is likely to change your idea of the problem. That’s what it’s meant to do. And if you’re lucky, it will do it before you begin building your solution ‘for real’ and it’s hard to change.
Prototyping is a whole discipline. But by just trying to do it at all, you’re already ahead of most of the world (congratulations on that!)