在某些环境中，强大的力量与战略方法背道而驰。例如，早期的初创公司感到巨大的压力，需要尽快发布其早期版本。在这些公司中，甚至 10％至 20％的投资似乎也负担不起。结果，许多初创公司采取了战术性的方法，在设计上花费了很少的精力，而在问题出现时则花费了更少的精力进行清理。他们认为，如果成功，他们将有足够的钱聘请额外的工程师来清理问题，从而使其合理化。
如果您是一家朝着这个方向发展的公司，则应该意识到，一旦代码库变成了意大利面条，几乎是不可能修复的。您可能会为产品的使用寿命付出高昂的开发成本。此外，好的（或坏的）设计的回报很快就会到来，因此战术方法很有可能甚至不会加快您的首个产品发布的速度。
要考虑的另一件事是，公司成功的最重要因素之一就是工程师的素质。降低开发成本的最佳方法是聘请优秀的工程师：他们的成本不会比普通工程师高很多，但生产率却高得多。但是，最好的工程师对良好的设计深感兴趣。如果您的代码库很残酷，那么单词会变得毫无用处，这将使您难以招募。结果，您最终可能会遇到普通的工程师。这将增加您的未来成本，并可能导致系统结构进一步退化。
Facebook 是一个鼓励战术编程的创业公司的例子。多年来，公司的座右铭是“快速行动并打破困境”。鼓励刚大学毕业的新工程师立即深入公司的代码库；工程师在工作的第一周将承诺投入生产是很正常的。从积极的一面来看，Facebook 作为一家赋予员工权力的公司而享有声誉。工程师拥有极大的自由度，并且几乎没有任何规则和限制。
Facebook 作为一家公司已经取得了令人瞩目的成功，但是由于该公司的战术方法，其代码库受到了影响。许多代码不稳定且难以理解，几乎没有注释或测试，并且使用起来很痛苦。随着时间的流逝，该公司意识到其文化是不可持续的。最终，Facebook 改变了座右铭，即“以坚实的基础架构快速移动”，以鼓励其工程师在良好的设计上进行更多的投资。Facebook 是否能够成功清除多年来战术编程中积累的问题还有待观察。
为了公平起见，我应该指出，Facebook 的代码可能并不比初创公司的平均水平差很多。战术编程在初创企业中司空见惯。Facebook 恰好是一个特别明显的例子。
幸运的是，通过战略方法也有可能在硅谷取得成功。Google 和 VMware 与 Facebook 差不多同时成长，但是这两家公司都采用了更具战略意义的方法。两家公司都非常重视高质量的代码和良好的设计，并且两家公司都开发了复杂的产品，这些产品通过可靠的软件系统解决了复杂的问题。公司的强大技术文化在硅谷广为人知。很少有其他公司可以与他们竞争聘请顶级技术人才。
这些例子表明，一家公司可以成功使用任何一种方法。但是，在一家关心软件设计并拥有清晰代码基础的公司中工作会有趣得多。
In some environments there are strong forces working against the strategic approach. For example, early-stage startups feel tremendous pressure to get their early releases out quickly. In these companies, it might seem that even a 10–20% investment isn’t affordable. As a result, many startups take a tactical approach, spending little effort on design and even less on cleanup when problems pop up. They rationalize this with the thought that, if they are successful, they’ll have enough money to hire extra engineers to clean things up.
If you are in a company leaning in this direction, you should realize that once a code base turns to spaghetti, it is nearly impossible to fix. You will probably pay high development costs for the life of the product. Furthermore, the payoff for good (or bad) design comes pretty quickly, so there’s a good chance that the tactical approach won’t even speed up your first product release.
Another thing to consider is that one of the most important factors for success of a company is the quality of its engineers. The best way to lower development costs is to hire great engineers: they don’t cost much more than mediocre engineers but have tremendously higher productivity. However, the best engineers care deeply about good design. If your code base is a wreck, word will get out, and this will make it harder for you to recruit. As a result, you are likely to end up with mediocre engineers. This will increase your future costs and probably cause the system structure to degrade even more.
Facebook is an example of a startup that encouraged tactical programming. For many years the company’s motto was “Move fast and break things.” New engineers fresh out of college were encouraged to dive immediately into the company’s code base; it was normal for engineers to push commits into production in their first week on the job. On the positive side, Facebook developed a reputation as a company that empowered its employees. Engineers had tremendous latitude, and there were few rules and restrictions to get in their way.
Facebook has been spectacularly successful as a company, but its code base suffered because of the company’s tactical approach; much of the code was unstable and hard to understand, with few comments or tests, and painful to work with. Over time the company realized that its culture was unsustainable. Eventually, Facebook changed its motto to “Move fast with solid infrastructure” to encourage its engineers to invest more in good design. It remains to be seen whether Facebook can successfully clean up the problems that accumulated over years of tactical programming.
In fairness to Facebook, I should point out that Facebook’s code probably isn’t much worse than average among startups. Tactical programming is commonplace among startups; Facebook just happens to be a particularly visible example.
Fortunately, it is also possible to succeed in Silicon Valley with a strategic approach. Google and VMware grew up around the same time as Facebook, but both of these companies embraced a more strategic approach. Both companies placed a heavy emphasis on high quality code and good design, and both companies built sophisticated products that solved complex problems with reliable software systems. The companies’ strong technical cultures became well known in Silicon Valley. Few other companies could compete with them for hiring the top technical talent.
These examples show that a company can succeed with either approach. However, it’s a lot more fun to work in a company that cares about software design and has a clean code base.