<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Prototyping on Brave New Geek</title><link>https://bravenewgeek.com/tag/prototyping/</link><description>Recent content in Prototyping on Brave New Geek</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:33:31 -0600</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://bravenewgeek.com/tag/prototyping/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Discipline in Prototyping</title><link>https://bravenewgeek.com/discipline-in-prototyping/</link><pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:33:31 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://bravenewgeek.com/discipline-in-prototyping/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Writing software doesn’t require discipline, but writing &lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt; software does. I would argue that the vast majority of tech debt in projects results from PoCs/prototypes/spikes. The code from these typically aren’t intended to make it into production, but they almost invariably do in some capacity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“I won’t bother writing unit tests for this code, it’s purely exploratory.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The code grows…&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“It’s just a rough proof-of-concept.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;…and grows…&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;“It won’t make it to production!”&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>