<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (earth2marsh)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from earth2marsh</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://martinfowler.com/bliki/Yagni.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3554206"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="http://martinfowler.com/bliki/Yagni.html">
    <title>Yagni</title>
    <dc:date>2015-05-26T21:00:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://martinfowler.com/bliki/Yagni.html</link>
    <dc:creator>earth2marsh</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["Now we understand why yagni is important we can dig into a common confusion about yagni. Yagni only applies to capabilities built into the software to support a presumptive feature, it does not apply to effort to make the software easier to modify. Yagni is only a viable strategy if the code is easy to modify, so expending effort on refactoring isn't a violation of yagni because refactoring makes the code more malleable. Similar reasoning applies for practices like SelfTestingCode and ContinuousDelivery. These are enabling practices for evolutionary design, without them yagni turns from a beneficial practice into a curse. But if you do have a malleable code base, then yagni reinforces that flexibility. Yagni has the curious property that it is both enabled by and enables evolutionary design."

"The ⅔ number is suggested by Kohavi et al, who analyzed the value of features built and deployed on products at microsoft and found that, even with careful up-front analysis, only ⅓ of them improved the metrics they were designed to improve."]]></description>
<dc:subject>programming agile features cost burden yagni</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/b:0ada7c8bc0c4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:programming"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:agile"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:features"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:cost"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:burden"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:yagni"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3554206">
    <title>Automate Everything - the hacker way | Hacker News</title>
    <dc:date>2012-02-14T07:36:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3554206</link>
    <dc:creator>earth2marsh</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[""I decided to roll my own in this case because I was interested in learning about email handling after watching this great railscast from Ryan Bates. And because paying $9 per month per user for something I could probably write myself in a couple of hours seemed silly."
I find myself having to fight against this instinct almost every day. There are a couple of problems with hacking for a couple of hours to save a few bucks a month.
Firstly, you now have an additional piece of software to maintain - you're committing yourself to an unknown quantity of future work.
Secondly, your software won't get any better without you actively improving it. The nice thing about software you pay someone else for is that it gets better over time.
It's a tough instinct to fight though. Building things is Fun. It's just that there are probably other things you should be building that are more important to your company."

"As a rough guide, you might factor in another 8-10 hours, because, according to Fred Brooks, a proper programming "product" takes about x3 as long as a "program"."]]></description>
<dc:subject>programming coding webdev hackers products estimates burden maintenance</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/b:899ebd46e63d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:programming"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:coding"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:webdev"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:hackers"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:products"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:estimates"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:burden"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:earth2marsh/t:maintenance"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>