zlacker

>If you don't have a point in time you are optimizing for as a developer, then why wouldn't you continue to gold plate and improve your code?

Because it feels good to complete work and I would like to move on to other features. How long can you work on improving a single piece of code before getting bored?

>>Financ+(OP)
So developers should work on features until they get bored of making them better?

>>darker+oo1
That's not what I am saying. The parent post makes it sound like, if a developer doesn't have a deadline he will just work on a single feature forever. I am saying that most developers intrinsically want to complete features to move on to new stuff. If they are in a good environment, arbitary deadlines are not required.

When I pick up a feature, I know roughly how long it will take and I will try to finish it within that time. I don't need an arbitary deadline from management.

>>Financ+kz1
> I know roughly how long it will take

You've formed your own arbitrary deadline right there, because what I was trying to say with my admittedly brief and snarky comment is that a feature being "done" is subjective.

You may have terrific business sense, and more importantly, one that is aligned with your stakeholders. That doesn't mean any other developer does. Agreeing on a deadline in many cases of a healthy team practice.

>>darker+2Y2
Arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system (first definition from google)

I think that reasonable and technically-informed deadlines are fine. But arbitrary deadlines are not a good long term approach.

We probably agree, but it's difficult to explain everything via comments :)