The High Cost of Rushing: Do You Want to Build a Product or Just Put Out Fires?
A good firefighter prevents the fire from spreading. A good programmer prevents the code from needing firefighters.
Shortcuts seem like synonyms for efficiency — after all, who doesn’t want to reach their destination faster? In the world of development, where agile deliveries, fast-paced sprints, and continuous releases are the norm, the temptation to cut corners is enormous.
But what if I told you that not every shortcut leads to success? Some merely create the illusion of progress when, in reality, they are paving the way for future problems.
The relentless pursuit of speed can, paradoxically, sabotage your own efficiency. What seems like a quick delivery today might turn into hard-to-maintain code, a fragile architecture, or technical debt that will come with a high price later. True progress isn’t just about delivering fast — it’s about the sustainability of what’s been built.
It’s not the fault of agile methodologies, but rather human nature’s tendency to underestimate complexity — all in the name of meeting unrealistic deadlines and satisfying immediate expectations. In the short term, delivering quickly might feel like a win, but the hidden costs of those decisions quietly accumulate in the code, the processes, and future maintenance.
There’s a paradox in software development. Managers and leaders push for speed, demand shorter delivery cycles, and want quick, visible results. But what few realize — and even fewer admit — is that the fastest way to build solid, sustainable software is to prioritize quality from day one.
The tortoise and the hare metaphor has never been more relevant. Rushed development, filled with shortcuts and temporary fixes, might give the impression of an early advantage. But, in the long run, the team that prioritized quality will inevitably surpass those who rushed to deliver anything that “just works” — a lesson that only the most experienced and wise developers have truly learned and witnessed firsthand.
But why does this happen? And how can we avoid falling into this trap? Let’s talk about it!
Quantity to measure software developer performance: a costly mistake
Imagine you need to hire a developer, and to evaluate their performance, you decide to analyze how many lines of code they write per day. It sounds like a reasonable metric, right? After all, the more code produced, the greater the output, right? Wrong.
The pursuit of quantity over quality is one of the biggest mistakes in evaluating the performance of software developers. Yet, this approach is still adopted by many companies, including big names in the industry. The problem? Lines of code are not a true reflection of a developer’s productivity or quality.
The myth of quantity: why counting lines of code doesn't make sense?
Measuring developer productivity with quantitative metrics like hours worked, story points delivered, or lines of code written is a flawed approach that ignores a critical factor in software development: quality. What really matters is not how much you write, but the impact and maintainability of what you write.
Steve McConnell, in the book Code Complete, argues that “lines of code are a misleading metric for productivity because they don’t account for efficiency, clarity, or maintainability.” He explains that more code doesn’t mean better code — on the contrary, it often indicates redundancy, unnecessary complexity, and higher maintenance costs.
Martin Fowler reinforces in Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code that “the goal of software development is not to write more code, but to write less code that solves the problem better.” According to him, measuring productivity by code volume encourages approaches that prioritize quantity over clarity and robustness.
Moreover, software with verbose code and poorly planned design tends to accumulate technical debt, making maintenance more difficult and increasing the risk of critical failures in the future. High-quality code should be concise, modular, and testable — not just extensive.
In the end, the cost of bad code will always outweigh the time invested in doing it right from the start. Poorly defined metrics lead to misguided incentives, and evaluating developers by the number of lines of code they write is a mistake that should have been left behind long ago.
The false impression of rapid progress
The culture of rushing development creates a paradox: in the short term, it seems like everything is going fast; in the long term, the team is drowning in problems, delays and rework. Let's look at some of the consequences of this mentality:
More bugs and less stability
Code written without proper planning and review often results in failures. The product may be released quickly, but soon support tickets and patches will start to be issued.
Code that is difficult to maintain and expand
With no tests, no standards, and no documentation, each new feature adds complexity to the system, making future implementations slower and riskier.
Knowledge loss
When developers leave the company, those who arrive find unreadable and unexplained code. The time spent understanding the system can be longer than the time needed to build something new from scratch.
Manual deployments and fragile processes
To speed up deliveries, many teams avoid setting up CI/CD pipelines or automations, opting instead for manual processes. At first, this may seem like a time saver, but in the long run, this leads to frequent failures and increased time wasted on repetitive tasks.
Okay, but what should really be taken into consideration?
What truly measures a developer’s performance?
If quantity isn’t a good indicator, what really makes a developer stand out? Some qualitative metrics can provide a more accurate perspective:
• Code clarity and efficiency: Well-structured, easy-to-understand code reduces maintenance time and allows other developers to collaborate effortlessly. It also decreases the chances of introducing bugs!
• Contribution to architecture and best practices: Developers who design scalable solutions help prevent future problems and accelerate long-term development.
• Ability to solve real problems: Writing code isn’t the goal — understanding the problem and delivering a cost-effective, appropriate solution is what truly matters.
• Collaboration and knowledge sharing: Great developers help the team grow, review colleagues’ code, and contribute to a productive, collaborative environment.
Software development isn’t a sprint; it’s a marathon of consistency.
Companies that prioritize speed over quality end up sabotaging themselves — creating fragile systems, accumulating technical debt, and spending more time putting out fires than innovating.
The uncomfortable truth that few managers want to accept is that the fastest way to get software live is to do it right from the start. The “tortoise” of quality (yes, some still believe quality slows down delivery 🫠) always wins against the “hare” of haste.
Developing well from the beginning reduces rework, increases stability and improves customer satisfaction.
Lack of Knowledge and Understanding: When Speed Outpaces Comprehension
Does speed without understanding really lead to good deliveries? In practice, the opposite happens: rushing hinders learning and results in poorly planned, hard-to-maintain software that is often discarded.
The Danger of Prioritizing Action Over Thought
Writing code is only one part of a developer’s job. The other — and perhaps the most important — is understanding what needs to be built, why it’s necessary, and how to ensure a sustainable solution in the long run.
Developers under pressure to deliver quickly often don’t have time to fully grasp the problem. They skip crucial steps such as:
• Understanding the business requirements.
• Validating the real need for what they are building.
• Exploring alternative solutions and choosing the best approach for the context.
• Considering architectural patterns and best practices.
This lack of knowledge and understanding creates a vicious cycle: software that appears to move forward quickly but is actually just accumulating hidden problems.
The Brute-Force Approach: Trial and Error Until It Works
The distinction between speed and direction is crucial here.
• Speed without direction means moving fast without knowing where you’re going.
• Speed with direction means advancing swiftly toward the right goal.
Developers who prioritize speed over comprehension often make decisions without considering the long-term consequences. They might complete tasks quickly, but much of their time later is spent fixing errors, refactoring poorly structured code, and dealing with bugs that could have been prevented with more reflection upfront.
A common symptom of this lack of understanding is the trial-and-error approach. Instead of thinking critically about the problem, some developers just write code, test it, and adjust until something works. The result is often fragile, hard-to-maintain code filled with unnecessary rework.
The workflow typically looks like this:
1. Write code quickly without deeply understanding the problem.
2. Test it to see if it works.
3. Discover that something is wrong.
4. Make random changes without a structured plan.
5. Repeat the cycle until it “kind of” works.
This process might seem efficient in the short term, but in the long run, it becomes a waste of time and effort.
The Difference Between an Experienced Developer and a Rushed Developer
The best developers make the work look easy. This happens not because they code faster, but because they make the right decisions most of the time. They have a solid understanding of the problem, analyze the best solution, and execute it with precision.
On the other hand, developers who work in a constant state of rush often make everything harder. They try anything that seems promising without distinguishing good practices from bad ones, producing code that might work today but will become a nightmare tomorrow.
The Cost of Rushing: Bad Software Costs More Than Well-Built Software
For small projects or disposable prototypes, quality might not seem like a big concern. But for any software that needs to be maintained for more than a few months or involves more than one person, rushed and careless development quickly becomes unsustainable.
The faster you move without understanding, without a clear grasp of the objective, the more problems you create. Every shortcut becomes a future trap, every rush results in rework, and every hasty solution turns into a headache for the team.
True productivity doesn’t come from uncontrolled speed, but from a clear understanding of what needs to be done and the right execution from the start.
If you’ve made it this far, you’ve probably realized that this article isn’t just a rant about bad practices in software development. It has a clear purpose: to show that quality is not a luxury, an extra, or an optional detail.
Quality is the only sustainable way to create software that truly delivers value. I wrote about this topic in another article, where I dive deeper into the subject of quality.
Many companies and managers still see quality as an “optional requirement”, something that can be negotiated or set aside to speed up deliveries. But this perspective is completely wrong.
Quality is not a whim of detail-oriented developers. It is the difference between software that evolves and software that turns into an unsolvable problem.
Building Software Is More Than Just Writing Code
The purpose of software development isn’t just to deliver anything. Building software means solving real problems. If rushing leads to the wrong or unsustainable solution, what was the point of delivering it so quickly? If each new feature breaks existing functionality, if the system becomes a patchwork of hacks, and if the team spends more time fixing bugs than innovating, what was actually delivered of value? Where is the investors’ or the company’s money going? What is the real financial return of these choices?
The problem is that many managers, directors, and even some developers still believe the myth that bad code that works is “good enough”. But it isn’t. Bad code always demands its payment later.
Quality Is Not a Requirement — It’s an Obligation
If you had to build a skyscraper, would you accept a rushed structure, with no guarantee that the foundation is solid? Of course not. So why should it be different with software?
Software needs to be reliable, secure, and sustainable. It must allow for changes without falling apart. It must be something people can trust to run their businesses—its solutions must provide safety for consumers, securely store their data, and deliver services to thousands or even millions of users.
Rushing may seem like a shortcut, but it’s actually a ticking time bomb. Every mistake made out of carelessness today will turn into a much bigger problem tomorrow.
The True Goal: Software That Evolves, Not Self-Destructs
What’s the real takeaway here? We want to reinforce the idea that well-built software isn’t an unnecessary cost; it’s an investment that saves time and money in the long run.
• Well-written code is easier to read, understand, and maintain.
• Thorough testing helps prevent issues and ensures the system functions as expected as it scales.
• A carefully planned architecture makes adding new features possible without breaking existing ones.
• A team that truly understands the product makes better decisions and delivers software that actually solves the core problem.
Quality in software development isn’t about perfectionism.
If a company wants to grow, innovate, and maintain a competitive product, it must treat quality as a non-negotiable principle. Anything less is just a disaster waiting to happen.
The Real Impact of Poor Software Quality
The lack of quality in software development can result in severe consequences for companies, including financial losses, reputational damage, and a loss of customer trust. Below are a few notable cases that illustrate these impacts:
1. TSB Bank (2018)
In April 2018, the British bank TSB suffered a failed migration to a new banking platform. The update left millions of customers unable to access their accounts online, with some even seeing other people’s private information. The issues persisted for months, causing a major trust crisis and significant damage to the bank’s reputation.
2. NHS Wales (2018)
In 2018, the National Health Service (NHS) in Wales experienced a technical failure that blocked access to patient records for doctors and staff, including critical test results like bloodwork and X-rays. Although it wasn’t a cyberattack, the disruption delayed medical care and highlighted the fragility of healthcare systems when software lacks resilience.
3. British Airways (2017)
In May 2017, British Airways faced a global IT outage that resulted in the cancellation of all flights from Heathrow and Gatwick. More than 1,000 flights were affected, causing chaos for thousands of passengers. The root cause? Power supply system failures—issues that better software and infrastructure planning might have prevented. The financial losses were massive, and the brand’s credibility took a major hit.
4. Facebook (2018)
In 2018, Facebook revealed a security vulnerability that exposed millions of user accounts to potential attacks. The flaw allowed malicious actors to access private data, leading to investigations, regulatory fines, and significant public backlash. This incident served as a wake-up call about the critical importance of software quality in protecting user information.
5. LATAM/Multiplus (2018)
In 2018, passengers reported persistent issues with LATAM/Multiplus’s new system, including difficulties accessing information and booking flights. These failures disrupted customer experiences and demonstrated how poor testing practices and rushed implementations can damage a company’s operations and reputation.
6. HSBC (2016)
In early 2016, HSBC suffered a major IT outage that left millions of customers without access to online banking services for two days. The bank’s COO, Jack Hackett, attributed the disruption to a “complex technical issue” within their internal systems—another example of how overlooked software quality can impact even industry giants.
Now, you might be thinking:
“Okay, these are major failures, but they seem like isolated incidents. Does this really prove that poor software quality is a systemic problem?” 🤔
This skepticism is understandable. When massive failures hit companies like Facebook, British Airways, or international banks, it’s easy to dismiss them as rare, unfortunate events. But this is a dangerous illusion.
The truth is that these cases are just the tip of the iceberg. They are not isolated incidents—they are symptoms of a recurring structural problem that affects companies of all sizes and across all industries.
Why Are These Failures Not Just Isolated Accidents?
1. The Culture of Rushing in Development
Most companies prioritize delivery speed over quality. Aggressive goals, pressure to release new features quickly, and the illusion that refactoring and quality can be addressed “later” create an environment where problems aren’t prevented — they’re just postponed.
2. Lack of Solid Quality Assurance Processes
Many of these failures could have been avoided with more rigorous testing, automated quality checks, and thorough code reviews. But the reality is that many companies still treat testing as an optional step — something to do “if there’s time”.
3. Accumulated Technical Debt
A significant portion of these failures originates from systems that have grown without proper planning. Old, poorly documented, and hard-to-maintain code becomes an enormous risk. The problem doesn’t appear overnight — it accumulates quietly until it eventually triggers a catastrophic failure.
4. Lack of Understanding of the Real Impact
Companies often underestimate the consequences of neglecting quality. But the costs of these failures go far beyond the time spent fixing bugs. They include:
• Direct revenue loss (e.g., flight cancellations, banking access disruptions).
• Brand reputation damage.
• Legal and regulatory costs (e.g., fines for data breaches, customer lawsuits).
• Loss of user trust, as customers may switch to more reliable competitors.
Smaller Failures Happen Every Day
If the examples mentioned earlier feel distant from your reality, consider the following:
• How many times have you used a system that froze or displayed an inexplicable error?
• How many businesses have lost customers because their website or app was unavailable?
• How many projects have descended into chaos because technical decisions were made without fully understanding the business needs?
The difference between a minor failure and a global disaster is just a matter of scale. The same underlying issues that affect small applications can, in larger systems, cause millions of dollars in losses.
These failures aren’t exceptions — they are predictable and inevitable when quality is neglected. Companies that don’t invest in quality aren’t saving time — they’re just accumulating problems that will eventually explode in the future.
The more time you spend putting out fires, the less time you have to build something solid.
If you still think that failures like this are rare, do some research on data leaks, system outages and catastrophic bugs from the past few years. You'll see that these cases happen all the time, and almost always for the same reasons: lack of quality, excessive haste and bad development decisions.
The C6 Bank Case: When Rushing Deliveries Becomes Costly
First and foremost, it’s important to clarify: this is a public case, and the analysis here is not a criticism of the institution but rather a real-life example of how system flaws can lead to million-dollar losses and severely impact a company’s reputation. What happened to C6 Bank could have happened to any other fintech or digital bank that neglected essential validation processes.
Now, let’s get to the point: what exactly happened?
The Incident: A Costly Oversight
C6 Bank launched a product called CDB Crédito, designed as an innovative way to offer credit to its customers. The idea was straightforward:
• A customer would invest an amount between R$ 100 and R$ 10,000 in a CDB (a type of fixed-income investment).
• This same amount would then become their credit card limit.
• The invested money would serve as collateral for the bank, reducing the risk of default.
In theory, it was a smart and practical solution. But in practice, the system had a critical vulnerability: users were able to spend their entire credit limit and then simultaneously withdraw the invested amount from the CDB before the bank could block the funds.
The Result?
A fraudulent scheme that caused a R$ 23 million loss, exploited by approximately 5,000 account holders. The bank took a multi-million-dollar hit because a crucial step in the process was not properly validated.
The Big Question: How Did This Happen?
This case illustrates a key point we’ve been discussing throughout this article:
Rushing to deliver a product without thorough validation can become an extraordinarily expensive mistake.
We don’t know exactly what led to this particular failure — it could have been:
• Pressure to launch quickly
• Insufficient time to validate all possible scenarios
• A lack of robust quality processes
However, one thing seems fairly evident: the tests likely focused on the system’s “happy path” — the standard, expected user behavior — while failing to consider edge cases like abuse and exploitation.
This is a classic example of what happens when delivery speed is prioritized over security.
And Here We Return to a Central Point: Quality Is Not Optional
Looking at this failure, it’s clear that:
• The investment block in the CDB should have been immediate, preventing any withdrawal before the bank secured the funds.
• More rigorous testing, including simulations of malicious attempts, could have identified the vulnerability before launch.
• Anomalous transaction monitoring could have detected suspicious activity before the fraud escalated into millions.
This mistake didn’t just cause a massive financial loss — it also damaged the bank’s reputation, a critical element for any financial institution, especially in the digital banking industry, where customer trust is everything.
What Can We Learn from This?
This case teaches us that software quality is not a luxury. It’s a fundamental requirement for any company seeking sustainable growth.
All too often, managers and executives believe that launching quickly is the best strategy. But what’s the point of shipping a product faster if, just a few months later, it turns into a financial black hole and damages the company’s credibility?
If this product had been more thoroughly tested, if the team had been given adequate time to simulate extreme and abusive scenarios, if the transaction validation process had been more robust, this vulnerability could have been avoided.
The C6 Bank case isn’t an isolated incident — it’s a symptom of a recurring problem in the tech industry.
Companies that underestimate the importance of quality eventually pay the price. And, as we’ve seen here, that price can be steep. Very steep.
Having a Developer Isn’t Enough – The Importance of Professionals Who Care About Quality
After everything we’ve discussed, one point should be abundantly clear:
Having a team of developers doesn’t automatically guarantee software quality.
And this isn’t just about technical skills — it’s about the mindset of the people writing the code.
Software development isn’t just about making something work. It’s about building it right, with security and sustainability in mind.
A developer who simply writes code and delivers features quickly might look productive at first glance, but if they don’t pay attention to detail, if they don’t think about long-term impacts, if they fail to consider potential vulnerabilities, that “productivity” will eventually turn into costly damage.
Fast Code vs. Quality Code
A feature might technically work, but has it been tested in every relevant scenario? Will it hold up under real-world conditions? Could it be silently opening the door to future problems?
Here are a few key differences between a developer who just delivers code and one who truly prioritizes quality:
• Critical Thinking:
A quality-focused developer doesn’t just implement what was asked. They question, analyze, and anticipate problems before they arise.
• Testing and Validation:
They don’t write code just to pass basic tests. They consider edge cases, misuse scenarios, and potential vulnerabilities.
• Clean, Maintainable Code:
Instead of delivering short-term fixes, they write well-structured, documented code that is easy to maintain and evolve.
• Understanding Business Requirements:
They recognize that software development isn’t just about technology — it’s about solving real business problems.
Bad code is fuel. If you don't plan well, your application will become an uncontrollable fire.
How Should the Foundation of Quality Be Structured?
For a system to be reliable and secure, quality must be embedded from the very beginning of the development process. This means it’s not enough for individual developers to care about it — the company culture and its processes must ensure that quality remains a top priority for the entire team.
Here are a few essential pillars to build this foundation:
1. Comprehensive Testing
• Well-executed unit and integration tests significantly reduce risks.
• Automated testing helps prevent future changes from breaking the system.
• Security and abuse tests ensure that critical vulnerabilities are detected before users encounter them.
2. Code Reviews
• Code reviews are not a waste of time; they are an investment in quality.
• Other developers can spot flaws and oversights that the original author might have missed.
• A reviewed codebase reduces the risk of severe vulnerabilities reaching production.
3. Monitoring and Observability
• Software needs to be monitored continuously after deployment. Structured logs, key metrics, and proactive alerts are fundamental to detect issues early.
• A well-monitored system can identify anomalies and respond to failures before they escalate and affect users at scale.
4. Planning and Design Before Implementation
• The rush to start coding often leads to poor architectural decisions.
• Teams that invest more time in planning generally face less rework later on.
• A well-defined design phase aligns the technical implementation with the business needs, ensuring better long-term results.
Quality is not just a development task; it is a strategic decision that ensures stability, security, and long-term success.
The Difference Between Building and Just Coding
Companies that truly value quality don’t expect a single developer to carry that responsibility alone. Quality is not the result of an exceptional programmer saving the day — it comes from well-structured processes, solid practices, and a work environment where the entire team has the time and tools to build sustainable software.
In the end, it’s not enough to have a programmer. What really makes a difference is having developers who care — professionals who understand that programming isn’t just writing code. It’s about creating long-lasting, secure solutions that won’t need to be rewritten every time a new problem arises.
And this is exactly where the insight from John Ousterhout fits perfectly.
The Myth of the Tactical Tornado
You’ve probably worked with or heard about a developer who seems like a superhero. They deliver code faster than anyone, solve problems in record time, and are always ahead in every sprint. But there’s a catch:
They do it tactically, with no consideration for the long-term impact.
This is the Tactical Tornado — the prolific coder who produces code at an astonishing pace but without concern for architecture, maintainability, or best practices.
To management, this person may look like an invaluable asset. But to the developers who later have to deal with the codebase, they leave behind a trail of destruction.
At first, this Tornado might appear to be accelerating development. But what they’re actually doing is kicking the can down the road, accumulating technical debt that someone else will have to pay off later.
And who ends up being labeled as “slow”?
The very developers doing the right work — the ones refactoring code, ensuring adequate test coverage, and writing software that remains stable and scalable in the long run.
A Toxic Dynamic
This dynamic can become extremely toxic for a team.
When the true engineers — the ones who prioritize quality — are seen as “slow” just because they don’t deliver code as recklessly as the Tactical Tornado, the company ends up reinforcing a destructive cycle.
The short-term gains from speedy but fragile code inevitably lead to long-term headaches, increased costs, and a team morale that slowly deteriorates as developers realize that quality work goes unnoticed while reckless speed gets rewarded.
It’s like walking on hot coals. At first, you don’t feel the heat that much — you think you can keep going without major issues. Speed seems to make up for the flaws, and progress feels real. But as time goes by, the burns start to show. Small problems turn into raging fires, rework piles up, and suddenly, the entire team is overwhelmed trying to contain the damage caused by rushing.
In the end, you either build a solid path from the start or spend your time trying to step where it hurts the least.
And guess what? In the long run, the team’s productivity plummets.
Fast Code vs. Good Code
If there’s one takeaway from this entire article, it’s that speed without quality is an illusion. The Tactical Tornado may seem efficient in the short term, but this approach is exactly what keeps companies stuck in firefighting mode instead of building solid, reliable products.
True productivity doesn’t come from developers who act on impulse. It comes from teams that find a healthy balance between speed and quality. Good code isn’t the code written the fastest — it’s the code that solves the problem effectively and continues to work well months or even years later.
What Should Companies Do Differently?
Companies that truly understand software development don’t glorify Tactical Tornadoes. Instead, they:
1. Create an environment where quality is a priority.
• Developers are given time to plan, test, and validate code properly.
• Unrealistic deadlines aren’t imposed to the point of forcing risky shortcuts that can cause significant damage to sensitive systems.
2. Value consistency and collaboration.
• Successful teams don’t depend on a single “hero” to fix everything.
• Clear processes and solid practices ensure that any developer can understand and build upon someone else’s work.
3. Measure success by long-term impact — not by delivery speed.
• Code that requires constant fixes or rewrites is not a success.
• Sustainable code is code that makes the team’s life easier and helps the company grow in the long run.
The Tactical Tornado might look like a valuable asset in the beginning. But companies that rely on this type of developer are building their foundation on quicksand.
Do You Want to Build a Product or Just Put Out Fires?
If you work in software development — as a developer, tech lead, or IT manager — this message is for you.
We’re talking about technology-dependent products where reckless decisions can come with a heavy price — and not just financially.
Speed without quality is not efficiency. It’s just a shortcut to inevitable problems:
• Security vulnerabilities.
• Financial losses.
• Frustrated customers.
• Legal disputes.
That’s the bill you get when a product is built without proper planning, validation, and testing.
Code without tests, without code review, and without a clear purpose is simply not ready for the real world.
If your company’s only metric for success is how fast you ship software — without considering what comes next — then believe me:
What comes next is fire.
And the faster you run to deliver, the faster those fires will ignite.
A Direct Message to Tech Leaders: Stop Acting Like Fire Chiefs.
Your role isn’t just to put out fires. Your mission is to create an environment where fires don’t break out every other week.
If your team spends more time fixing bugs than building new features, then there’s something deeply wrong with your company’s culture.
The more your company treats developers like firefighters, the more fires it will have to extinguish.
And to You, Developer: Be the Voice of Reality.
Speak up. Explain to your managers and clients the risks of building products without proper validation and planning. Don’t stay silent while the ship steers toward the iceberg.
I know what you’re thinking:
“But I need to pay the bills, put food on the table. I can’t risk being seen as ‘difficult’ or constantly disagreeing with my boss.”
You’re absolutely right. Millions of people struggle with this every day.1
But please — don’t settle for working at companies that drain your energy, rob you of time with your family, and destroy your peace of mind.
Don’t sacrifice yourself for companies that chase unrealistic goals, fail to provide constructive feedback, and treat developers like disposable labor.
A Good Firefighter Prevents the Fire From Spreading. A Good Developer Prevents the Code From Needing Firefighters.
In Short: Stop Being a Code Firefighter.
Stop willingly fixing problems that you already warned about months ago.
If a product is born without planning, validation, and quality, it’s not a product — it’s just a ticking time bomb.
Stop accepting everything so passively. Stop fixing everything without question.
If you keep putting out fires without pushing back, without clearly presenting the risks, and without demanding change, you’re only feeding a destructive cycle.
Unless, of course, you enjoy spending your weekends and late nights debugging broken code, chasing avoidable bugs, and explaining to angry customers why things aren’t working.
But if that doesn’t sound like your idea of a fulfilling career, then it’s time to:
1. Stop accepting speed and poor planning as normal.
2. Start asking questions.
3. Start demanding better processes and clearer expectations.
And if nothing changes — start looking for companies that genuinely value quality.
Because as long as you accept being a firefighter, there will always be someone willing to let the fires burn.
Thank you so much for reading to the end!
Big hug! ❤️
This is a legitimate and real concern. Millions of people work in companies where the culture is based on pressure for speed, unrealistic deadlines and little appreciation for quality. And, often, those who question bad decisions end up being seen as “negative” or “complicated”.
But here’s the thing: agreeing with everything and accepting bad processes doesn’t make the environment better – it just perpetuates the problem. The more you bow your head to hasty and poorly planned decisions, the more you will be put in this position of “putting out fires” all the time.
It’s not about being a rebel without a cause, but about being a professional who values quality and seeks a sustainable environment. Questioning when something is clearly going wrong is not being annoying – it’s being responsible. And believe me, serious companies value this.
If you feel like your company only wants fast deliveries without caring about quality, without listening to feedback and without leaving room for improvement, it may be a sign that you are in the wrong place. Paying the bills is essential, but being constantly overwhelmed, with no time to grow professionally and always being treated like a code-slinger is not a sustainable plan for your career.
Taking a stand can be difficult, but continuing in a toxic environment where your voice is not heard and where haste always wins over quality can be even more expensive in the long run – both for your mental health and for your career trajectory.
Paying the bills is essential, but killing yourself for a company that doesn't value your work is not sustainable. If your current work culture is draining your energy and limiting your growth, don't normalize it. Companies come and go, but your career and your QUALITY OF LIFE are your responsibility. Look for an environment that values you and allows you to do what really matters: develop quality software.