The Quality Paradox: When ‘Move Fast’ Slows You Down

date

Aug 19, 2025

work-status

slug

the-quality-paradox-when-move-fast-slows-you-down

status

Published

tags

advice

summary

Build Fast, Fail Fast” was never meant to justify shipping low-quality products. The phrase doesn’t dismiss quality, it leaves it open-ended. Yet, many of us take it literally, rallying behind speed at the expense of quality. Maybe it’s time we looked at it from a different perspective.

type

Post

external-url

If you’ve been on a hike, you’ve likely seen groups quietly cleaning up the trail as they walk. Curious hikers often ask, ‘Why bother picking up someone else’s mess?’.

The answer is almost always simple and profound: ‘Because we care.’

I am not an avid hiker, but on every trail I was on, I met people like this and eventually, I started doing it myself on every hike.

Over time, it became a habit: “Improving anything I touch”

I’ve noticed that even among fellow coders, when it comes to things we’re truly passionate about — whether it’s bikes, music, cars, or art; we keep refining, tweaking, and improving them bit by bit.

That made me wonder:

why can’t we apply the same mindset to the code we write?

After all, it’s rarely as hard as modifying a bike or spending three hours on an acrylic painting.

This question has always baffled me, and increasingly so in recent years. Naturally, I tried to instill this as a practice within my team, encouraging them to improve the code every time they touched it.

You might also have observed, As an Engineer, you often review code across teams. While potential code improvements surface during PR discussions, they are frequently overlooked or deprioritised—often considered less urgent than fixing a bug, addressing business logic, or even making a minor copy change on the UI. More often than not, they end up marked as “no priority” or pushed straight into the backlog.

Why is that?

Are we, as developers, always racing to deliver features quickly, sacrificing quality in the process?

Is it the old belief, “don’t change it if it works”?

Is it because we’re simply less invested in code compared to our hobbies?

Any other reason or worse, do we just not care?

“Build Fast, Fail Fast” was never meant to justify shipping low-quality products. The phrase doesn’t dismiss quality, it leaves it open-ended. Yet, many of us take it literally, rallying behind speed at the expense of quality.

And here’s the irony—many of us complain that the products we buy today don’t feel as well-made as those from years ago. But aren’t we guilty of doing the same with our software?

At the time of writing this, I see only two reliable ways to ensure better code:

Write good code in the first place.

Improve the code you touch, bit by bit.

Most companies today deal with large, legacy codebases. Rewrites are costly and often unrealistic. In such environments, small, incremental improvements create long-term impact. This is the essence of the Boy Scout Rule:

“Always leave the campground cleaner than you found it.”

For years, goals, deadlines, and KPIs have stood in the way of consistently applying this principle. But now, the landscape is changing. With the rise of AI-powered tools like Cursor, Windsurf, and others, we have new leverage. Assuming you actually know how to use these tools (and not just “vibe-code” your way into more mess), writing better code is often just a well-crafted prompt away.

The expectation is not that you will suddenly write flawless code from scratch. The expectation is simpler: use AI to improve what you’re already working on.

💡 Now that I have talked about the problem, let me also give you a place to start (if you are interested in the change). When ever you touch a code base, just do one of these minor improvements —

Adding basic types to utility functions.

Renaming variables that cause confusion.

Break down complex logic into smaller, focused functions.

Extract reusable patterns into utilities.

Generate unit tests (Yes !! tests absolutely count as making the codebase better).

Add thoughtful comments where the logic isn’t obvious.

Sounds simple right ? Yes & That’s all !!

But, let’s address a hypothetical case —

We already have tools that help us write cleaner code.

We already have tools that help us understand complex codebases.

If quality still doesn’t improve or time is not spent to try improving the process, then the issue is no longer technical—it’s a Process and People problem and it needs to be addressed.

Often than not i hear a statement saying we are being rushed by a commitment or a team. As a dev, its upon us to deliver the better products. Why cant we say NO to every such rush & push back and saying, “This feature cannot go to production in 10 days. I need 20 days, and in return, you’ll have fewer bugs and better maintainability”?

That is not a lack of skill, most developers are capable and thats why companies hire us. These are problems we can fix — not with more tools, but with better practices and stronger culture.

At the same time, companies also need to rethink their approach. Scaling a feature doesn’t require 30 developers. It requires 10 developers who are empowered, focused, and accountable. Delivering half-baked features faster and then spending cycles fixing issues later is a losing strategy.

I believe, Customers don’t always stick around because you were first to ship. More often, they stay because your product consistently works and earns their trust. Shipping bad products and worrying about churn afterward is not the right place for a company to be in.

Cover Photo by Lê Tân from Unsplash

🤖 This article is enhanced by AI