The question is: how does any of that translate into more revenue? If you try more ideas and they mostly go nowhere that's not necessarily helpful to the bottom line.

▲

milkshakes 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

speed of iteration is more important than quality of iteration; high iteration speed lowers the cost of failure and compounds improvements

▲

kibwen 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If that were universally true in all domains then all the best and most reliable software in the world would be written in interpreted languages, because they have the fastest iteration speed. Sometimes rapid low-quality iteration is just spinning your wheels.

▲

nightski 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure that is strictly true. Speed of iteration is increased by interpreted languages in the small, but when working on larger systems or on teams where collaboration is required they can have the opposite effect.

I also find that thinking through a design first helps me achieve a result faster. So I prefer languages that encourage you to think first, type later. Interpreted languages encourage you to type first, think later.

▲

Supermancho 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If that were universally true in all domains

Moving the goalpost is not compelling.

	▲	kibwen 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No goalpost is being moved here. Don't assume that an aphorism coined in one domain generalizes to other domains, especially when we have evidence to the contrary.

▲

ManBeardPc 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not all experiments work out. If we find the right approach faster we can finish the project faster. Some projects are mostly fixed price or offer bonuses for reaching milestones in a certain time. Meaning we more often get a bonus and can take more projects. Also we can take projects with tighter deadlines that we would need to decline otherwise.

▲

hackernud3s 5 hours ago | parent [-]

But if everyone's taking on more projects... where do all the new projects come from? And wouldn't it just lower the value of each project?

▲

ManBeardPc 5 hours ago | parent [-]

A lot in this world is not optimized by software yet. For our customers they have employees with decades of experience guessing things, maybe some software that kind of helps but still not good enough (slow, not finding really good formulas). They often have difficult problems and many failed projects. We try to find such customers and offer our service. If we are cheaper (+ show portfolio of successful projects) more are willing to give it another try with us.

	▲	hackernud3s 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right, and while that might be working out for you right now, there is a finite budget that companies have for projects like that. The "zero financial payoff" framing sounds about right to me.

▲

jonwinstanley 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yep. Hard to see why this increases revenue or profitability