preface

I’ve worked at a number of startups, and I’ve been through several stages of startups, so let me give you my thoughts on this.

1. What kind of project is excellent (from the perspective of R&D)

A project that makes money is a good project? Big projects are good projects, right? A project that fits the trend of The Times is a good project?

The feeling is bullshit, good projects are through the test of the market. Why start a project when you know it’s going to happen before it’s even started?

A good project is one that has experienced the test of the market, constantly testing the water, constantly adjusting the course, and constantly implementing. Gold washed down by the waves.

So is this important for r&d? It doesn’t matter, r & D is a ship builder, all R & D needs to do is implement the captain’s blueprint.

Good projects lead to growth, not negative growth. This is the advantage of adopting a universal framework for research and development. It is inevitable for a company to have an iron battlefield, flowing troops and personnel turnover. If it adopts something obsolete and eliminated by the market, talents often have a long adaptation period and cannot bring value to the company. And projects can be a drag on talent advancement.

The project was a success, with backbone and revenue,

When a project fails, it is the experience and the lesson, not the failure and only the lesson.

Excellent projects should create a win-win situation, the progress of the project, the progress of talents, excellent projects are also the guarantee of retaining talents.

2. Excellent project structure

Implement functionality directly for rapid project iteration. It’s a startup mantra

At the moment, startups tend to ignore the importance of architecture. They feel like they need to get something out of the way, get it to market first, and then have the opportunity to refactor it later. Often without funding, projects are too redundant and coupled, so they are either abandoned or the company is done.

The downside of a messy project structure, especially during staff turnover, is that new hires are often overwhelmed, there is no development documentation, no interface documentation, and no clear code hierarchy, which seems to be standard in startups. However, after employees leave, they take away most of the experience of the project. For a project like this, new employees often pay 100%, but only get 20% or even lower benefits. A good project is one that allows employees to quickly integrate into r&d. A good project should grow with the company, not with people, and when RESEARCH and development becomes a drag on the project, it is often the withdrawal of the neglected architecture.

Architect investment, a person top five people’s salary, is indeed a start-up company is not good investment point, but the personal concept, hustle outside must be first inside, the rear can not give you the production of artillery, you use what to attack the enemy.

Capital is one thing, time is another. An excellent architecture usually takes some time to build. Moreover, the reality without functions cannot be shown to capitalists, who do not look at the architecture at all, but only the hand. However, the architecture should be constantly adjusted according to the project, which is what a good architect does. Only when the ship is stable can it set sail. A static architecture is definitely not a good architecture, because the architecture is constantly adjusted according to the business. This is the only way to adapt to the ever-changing sea

The latter

Just as a research and development, stand in their own point of view. If improper, pure boast.