Live data from Hacker News

The economics of software teams: Why most engineering orgs are flying blind

viktorcessan.com

11–20 of 299 posts

Re: The economics of software teams: Why most engineering orgs are flying blind

#11
I think the only thing that matters is whether the people on the team care deeply about the product; whether they care more about the product than their own careers (in the short term). Without that, any metric or way of thinking can and will be gamed.

Unfortunately, even with all the management techniques in the world, there are just some projects that are impossible to care about. There’s simply a significantly lower cap on productivity on these projects.

Re: The economics of software teams: Why most engineering orgs are flying blind

#12

> The obvious objection is that code produced at that speed becomes unmanageable, a liability in itself. That is a reasonable concern, but it largely applies when agents produce code that humans then maintain. Agentic platforms are being iterated upon quickly, and for established patterns and non-business-critical code, which is the majority of what most engineering organizations actually maintain, detailed human fam…

Exactly. I think it's been a while since I've read an LLM hot take which couldnt have been written by an LLM and this one is no exception.

There's a 99% chance that the training materials on sale are equally replaceable with a prompt.

Re: The economics of software teams: Why most engineering orgs are flying blind

#13
> This does not mean that Slack’s engineering investment was wasted, because Slack also built enterprise sales infrastructure, compliance capabilities, data security practices, and organizational resilience that a fourteen-day prototype does not include.

The LLM-agent team argument also misses the core point that the engineering investment (which actually encompasses business decisions, design and much more than just programming) is what actually got Slack (or any other software product) to the point where is it is now and where it's going in the future and creating a snapshot of the current status is, while maybe not absolutely trivial, still just a tiny fraction of the progress made over the years.

Re: The economics of software teams: Why most engineering orgs are flying blind

#15
The "author" used someone's vibecoded Slack clone to justify his conclusions. I think he believes that the majority of Slack's value lies in the slick CSS animations.

I do agree with his thesis in the middle, about how the ZIRP decade and the cultures that were born from that period were outrageous and cannot survive the current era. It's a brave new world, and it's not because of AI. It's because there's just not enough money flowing anymore, and what little is left is sucked up by the big boys (AI).

Re: The economics of software teams: Why most engineering orgs are flying blind

#18
> A messy codebase is still cheaper to send ten agents through than to staff a team around. And even if the agents need ten days to reason through an unfamiliar system, that is still faster and cheaper than most development teams operating today.

I’ve been on 2 failed projects that have been entirely AI generated and it’s not that agents slow down and you can just send more agents to work on projects for longer, it’s that they becoming completely unable to make any progress whatsoever, and whatever progress they do make is wrong.

Re: The economics of software teams: Why most engineering orgs are flying blind

#19
post #8
post #5

Using ‘blind’ to mean ‘ignorant’ is like using any disability label as a synonym for ‘bad’—it turns a real condition into an insult.

"Flying blind" is a completely standard idiom originating from flying while blinded by e.g. cloud or darkness. Its meaning is a figurative transplant of a literal description.

I know it’s an idiom. The point is that it still uses blindness as a stand-in for incompetence/unsafe guessing. Being common doesn’t make it harmless. Common just means we’ve normalized it. And you defending it shows that weve normalized it to a point where the double-meaning is seemingly only apparent to blind people.

Re: The economics of software teams: Why most engineering orgs are flying blind

#20

The 3-5x return threshold is the part most eng leaders never internalize. I've seen teams spend entire quarters on internal tooling that saves maybe 20 minutes per developer per week — nowhere near break-even, let alone a healthy return. The uncomfortable truth is that most prioritization frameworks (RICE, WSJF, etc.) deliberately avoid dollar amounts because nobody wants to see the math on their pet project. Once yo…

You’re absolutely right, but just to a point. It should be easy to clearly quantify the desired financial outcome of a sprint, but not of its components. I don’t want to spend a single minute figuring out the financial outcome of a single ticket.
Post reply on HN