X hour or better early than late! About one difficult decision


To be or not to be, that is the question

- worried the hero of the Shakespearean play, and my head has recently been puzzled by other doubts.

Let me tell you more in detail.


A self-taught programmer who is engaged in self-education through information on the Internet is forced to deal with hundreds of opinions on this or that occasion and try to form his own among this “information noise”.

For myself, I had to answer the question - when to bring the constructed site to public access?

No, let’s say a landing page with a form for subscribing to open a site, counters and an accounting system I did for half a night (during the day I work on the main job, which is not connected with programming), but the site that should do all the work “fill in” the same way quickly fail ...

Flour of creativity

The site engine is self-written, I even came up with a name for it - Kangaroo, that is, Kangaroo in Russian, so it’s necessary to thoroughly work on the work of some modules, which takes extra time. He specifically refused ready-made CMS in favor of a self-made engine for gaining complete control over the work and getting better results, in comparison with popular free and paid solutions.

One fine evening, I caught myself thinking that programming is such a fascinating thing that one and the same “chip” of a site can be beaten with several variants of code, and it is as addictive as it delays the issuance of at least some ready-made solution that would please everyone 100%.


A vicious circle - you do something, then look at it, find flaws, break everything “nafig” and do it in a new way, look from the side and again ...

Furrowing the Internet, I read this opinion -

you can’t put into the public what is a raw product, you simply initially form a negative opinion with visitors and simply lose such customers forever.

The opposite opinion that I met -

endless “licking” and “polishing” of the product delays its natural testing in real conditions and increases the chances of making functionality that nobody needs. In another way - if the published site is completely satisfied with you, it means that you published it late.

Final choice

You know, I feel closer to the second option, and for myself I answered my question like this - the site needs to be displayed in public now!

More than half of the functionality lies in the raw code, and is not available for use. Then finish it.

The disadvantages of this solution (few): there are people who, as expected, recognized the site as ugly and weak.

Advantages of the solution (there are many): now, in addition to bare words and a printed business proposal to suppliers, I now have a real site that I show to store owners. Now, when meeting with them, I’m already discussing not ghostly opportunities, but real and affordable tools.

Having stepped over my own ego and desire to have a beautiful and multifunctional site, I forced myself to separate the grains from the chaff and form the core from which it is already possible to build on.

It seems to me that this is not enough ... thanks for your attention

PS I consider it an honor to hear your opinions on this - to publish only a 100% ready site or to "cut" MVP (minimally working product) and jump into the abyss of the Internet with it?


Also popular now: