zlacker

>>vimes6+(OP)
Well the counter argument is that shipping later also destroys value (because value can only actually start to be accumulated once a product has shipped).

But this article doesn't seem to address the obvious counter-point.

For instance, take the below:

> wouldn't you rather run a your customer's payments through code that is at least attempting to handle error conditions, rather than some happy path code that just assumes everything works?

But this doesn't address the obvious issue which is, there is value destroyed (or not created) by not allowing customers to pay you earlier.

>>Closi+w7
"destroyed" and "not created" are not synonyms, they can't be used interchangeably as you do here. This invalidates the argument for me to be honest.

>>tuxie_+38
Well the article talks about examples of 'destroying value' being projects that failed to go live, which would be 'value not created' to your point (it's not my choice of language, I was just following the article!). If it invalidates my argument I assume it invalidates the article too.