(From this thread: https://twitter.com/unclebobmartin/status/326189060311891970)
Abby is talking about speed of feedback. Why would we invest in something high quality if we have no idea if it is going to work? In the Agile world, Fast in exchange for Quality certainly does appear - we just call it "Prototypes" or "Spikes". Those are specifically designed to eliicit feedback without spending a ton of time on a solution we may or may not need.
Lean Startup principles take that a bit further - build something quickly to get feeback so that you know if the direction you are going in is the right one. That gives you customer feedback - and dollars - to be able to build a high quality solution. If something has bugs or doesn't work correctly for all cases, who cares if we are directing people only down one path to see how they respond to the system?
Like spikes, it has the danger of turning into the final product, at which point quality is a big concern. But I see no problem with advising customers who are trying to learn if a market is even feasible to build something quickly to get feedback, and then throw it away.
Going fast sustainably is only possible with quality - I think we all agree with that. But I can guarantee you I can beat out someone building an application with quality to build a prototype rapidly if we are only looking for feedback - not sustained growth.
Cory, my point in all of this is that the forces at play for a startup with an extremely limited budget do not conflict with being careful, and writing good clean code. You may not implement everything, but what you implement you implement well.