Developer Communication Translation Guide for Non-Technical Founder
Decode developer estimates, technical objections, and scope discussions. Learn what developers actually mean when they say 'it depends' or 'that's non-trivial.
January 8, 2025 11 min read
"How long will this take to build?"
"It depends."
"Can we add this feature?"
"That's non-trivial."
"Why is this taking longer than expected?"
"We ran into some technical debt."
If these exchanges feel familiar, you're not alone. The communication gap between non-technical founders and developers creates more project failures than any technical challenge.
Developers aren't being evasive. They're communicating in a language optimized for precision and risk management. Founders communicate in a language optimized for speed and outcomes. Neither is wrong. But without translation, both sides end up frustrated.
This guide decodes common developer phrases, explains what they actually mean, and shows you how to have productive technical conversations that get to real timelines, concrete tradeoffs, and actionable decisions.
Why Developers Say "It Depends"
"It depends" is the most common developer response to timeline questions. It's also the most frustrating for founders who need concrete answers.
Here's what developers mean when they say it depends:
Translation: "I need more information about scope, constraints, and context before I can give you an accurate estimate."
What Developers Are Actually Asking
When a developer says "it depends," they're implicitly asking:
Scope clarity: What exactly needs to be built? Edge cases included?
: Does this connect to existing systems? Which ones?
Stop planning and start building. We turn your idea into a production-ready product in 6-8 weeks.
Integration points
Data requirements: What data structures are involved? Do they exist or need creation?
Quality expectations: MVP-level or production-ready? What's acceptable technical debt?
Timeline flexibility: Is this a hard deadline or a planning estimate?
How to Get Past "It Depends"
Instead of accepting "it depends" as a final answer, ask the clarifying questions developers need:
"Let me give you more context. For the user dashboard feature, I need users to see their last 10 transactions and current balance. It doesn't need to be real-time; updating once per hour is fine. This is for our MVP launch in 6 weeks. Given that, what's your estimate?"
Now the developer can answer with specifics because you've defined the constraints.
Decoding "Non-Trivial"
"That's non-trivial" is developer speak for "this is harder than it looks." It's not a no, but it's a yellow flag.
Translation: "This feature requires significant architectural work, carries technical risk, or creates complexity that will affect future development."
The Non-Trivial Spectrum
Not all non-trivial tasks are equally complex. When a developer calls something non-trivial, ask: "On a scale where trivial is a day and highly complex is three weeks, where does this land?"
Mildly non-trivial (2-4 days): Requires some research or touches multiple parts of the codebase, but the approach is clear.
Moderately non-trivial (1-2 weeks): Needs architectural decisions, integration with external services, or building new data models.
Highly non-trivial (3+ weeks): Involves fundamental changes to how the system works, significant research into unknown territory, or high technical risk.
What to Ask Next
When you hear "non-trivial," follow up with:
"What makes this complex?"
"What would a simpler version look like?"
"If we deprioritized this, what would we lose?"
These questions reveal whether the complexity is inherent to the feature or created by how you've scoped it. Often, a non-trivial feature has a trivial version that delivers 80% of the value.
Understanding "Technical Debt"
"We need to address technical debt" is often met with skepticism from founders. It sounds like developers wanting to rewrite working code for perfectionist reasons.
Translation: "Shortcuts we took to ship fast are now slowing us down. If we don't fix them, every new feature will take longer and break more things."
Good Debt vs. Bad Debt
Not all technical debt is bad. Some debt is strategic. The question is whether the interest rate is manageable.
Strategic debt (acceptable): Using a simpler approach to ship fast, knowing you'll revisit it when you have users and data. Example: hard-coding a workflow for your first customer instead of building a configurable system.
Crushing debt (must address): Decisions that compound over time and make the codebase harder to work with each sprint. Example: no data validation because you rushed, leading to corrupted data that breaks features.
For a deeper dive on what technical debt actually means, the key distinction is between debt that pays dividends (shipped features that validated assumptions) versus debt that just costs interest (shortcuts that keep causing problems).
When to Prioritize Debt
Ask your developer: "If we don't fix this now, what breaks or slows down in the next 4 weeks?"
If the answer is "nothing critical, but it'll be harder to add features" - defer it.
If the answer is "we can't add user permissions because the authentication system is too fragile" - prioritize it.
Technical debt becomes critical when it blocks valuable features or creates operational risk.
Translating Estimation Language
Developers estimate in ranges because software has uncertainty. Founders want single numbers because businesses need commitments.
The Estimation Spectrum
"A few hours": Means 2-6 hours. Probably straightforward.
"A day or two": Means 1-3 days. Some complexity or unknowns.
"About a week": Means 3-7 days. Moderate complexity with some research needed.
"A couple weeks": Means 1.5-3 weeks. Significant complexity or many unknowns.
"A month": Means 3-6 weeks. High complexity, probably needs to be broken down.
"A few months": Means "I don't actually know; we need to scope this properly."
Why Ranges Matter
When a developer gives you a range, the upper bound is usually more accurate than the lower bound. Optimism bias affects developers like everyone else.
If you need a committed deadline, ask: "What would it take to hit the lower end of that range? What risks push us to the upper end?"
This reveals the assumptions behind the estimate and helps you understand what could go wrong.
What "We Need to Refactor This" Actually Means
"We should refactor this code" triggers alarm bells for founders. It sounds like rewriting working features for aesthetic reasons.
Translation: "This code works, but its structure makes it hard to modify or extend. Cleaning it up now will make future changes faster and less risky."
Refactoring vs. Rewriting
Refactoring: Improving code structure without changing what it does. Takes days to weeks depending on scope.
Rewriting: Building the same functionality from scratch. Takes weeks to months.
When a developer says "refactor," confirm they mean restructuring, not rebuilding. Ask: "Will users notice any difference in how this works?"
If the answer is no, it's refactoring. If yes, it's a rewrite disguised as a refactor.
When Refactoring Makes Sense
Refactoring pays off when:
You're about to build several features that touch the same code
Bugs keep appearing in the same area
Simple changes take days because the code is hard to modify
Refactoring doesn't make sense when:
The code works and you're not planning to change it soon
You're in a crunch to ship something critical
The refactor would take longer than building new features on the messy code
Breaking Down "This Will Break Things"
"If we add this feature, it might break things" sounds like poor engineering. Shouldn't they build it so it doesn't break?
Translation: "This change touches core systems that other features depend on. We need testing time to make sure those integrations still work."
Managing Breaking Change Risk
When a developer warns that a change might break things, ask:
"What specifically might break?"
"How would we know if it broke?"
"How do we test to prevent that?"
Often, the answer reveals that the risk is manageable with proper testing, but the testing takes time that wasn't in the original estimate.
The Staging Environment Conversation
If your developer says "we should test this in staging first," they're managing risk. Staging is a copy of your production environment where you can break things safely.
The time investment in staging environments pays off by catching bugs before users see them. For step-by-step MVP building, proper testing infrastructure should be part of your initial setup, not an afterthought.
Understanding "That's a Hack"
"That approach is a hack" sounds dismissive. Why not just build it the right way?
Translation: "This will work but creates problems we'll need to fix later. It's technical debt with a defined interest rate."
When Hacks Make Sense
Sometimes hacks are the right move. The question is whether you're taking on debt consciously.
Good hacks: Quick solutions that let you validate assumptions before investing in proper implementation. Example: manually processing payments for your first 10 customers before building payment automation.
Bad hacks: Shortcuts that save hours now but cost weeks later. Example: skipping data validation to ship faster, then spending weeks cleaning corrupted data.
The Hack Decision Framework
When a developer proposes a hack or warns against one, ask:
"How long does the hack take versus the proper solution?"
"What breaks when we need to fix this later?"
"At what scale does this become a problem?"
If the hack takes 2 days and the proper solution takes 2 weeks, and you can defer the proper solution until you have 100 users instead of 10, the hack might be the right move.
Decoding "We Should Use X Instead of Y"
Developers have strong opinions about tools and frameworks. When they advocate for changing your tech stack, it's easy to dismiss it as technology fetishism.
Translation: "I see a significant difference in productivity, maintainability, or capability between these options based on the requirements you've described."
How to Evaluate Stack Recommendations
When a developer wants to change tools, ask:
"What specific problems does X solve that Y doesn't?"
"What's the migration cost if we're already using Y?"
"What do we lose by switching?"
Good recommendations have concrete answers about capabilities, developer productivity, or long-term maintenance costs. Weak recommendations focus on popularity or personal preference.
"We need to scope this better before estimating" can sound like analysis paralysis. You want estimates now, not after a week of planning.
Translation: "The current description has enough ambiguity that my estimate could be off by 3-5x. I need to ask clarifying questions before committing to a timeline."
The Scope Clarity Test
If your developer says the scope isn't clear enough to estimate, run this test. Ask them to describe what they think you're asking for. If their description doesn't match your expectations, your scope isn't clear.
This isn't the developer's fault or yours. It's a communication gap that estimation would expose anyway, except you'd discover it mid-build instead of upfront.
How Much Scoping Is Enough
For most MVP features, adequate scoping takes 1-2 hours of conversation and should answer:
What does the user see and do?
What data gets created, read, or modified?
What happens when things go wrong (error cases)?
What's explicitly out of scope for this version?
If scoping is taking days, you're overthinking it. If it's taking 10 minutes, you're underthinking it.
Understanding "It's Working on My Machine"
"It works on my machine but not in production" is a classic developer frustration. It sounds like an excuse.
Translation: "The development environment and production environment have different configurations, data, or dependencies. I need to debug the difference."
Environment Parity Problems
Modern development involves multiple environments:
Local: Developer's laptop
Staging: Test environment that mimics production
Production: Where real users interact with your product
When code works locally but fails in production, it usually means:
Different environment variables or configuration
Different data (production has edge cases development doesn't)
Different infrastructure (database versions, server capabilities)
This isn't sloppiness. It's the inherent complexity of deploying software across different environments. The solution is better tooling and processes, not blaming the developer.
What "We Need to Migrate the Database" Means
"We need to run a database migration" can sound scary, especially if you have user data.
Translation: "We're changing how data is structured. This needs to happen carefully to avoid data loss or downtime."
Migration Risk Levels
Not all migrations carry the same risk:
Low risk: Adding new fields or tables without touching existing data. Usually safe.
Medium risk: Modifying existing fields in ways that preserve data but change structure. Requires testing.
High risk: Removing fields, changing data types, or restructuring relationships. Needs careful planning and rollback strategies.
Questions to Ask About Migrations
Before approving a database migration, ask:
"What data changes?"
"What's the rollback plan if something breaks?"
"How long will this take?"
"Will users experience downtime?"
Good answers show the developer has thought through edge cases and has a safety plan.
Key Takeaways
"It depends" means developers need more scope clarity, not that they're being evasive
"Non-trivial" indicates significant complexity - ask for the simpler version
"Technical debt" is only critical when it blocks features or creates operational risk
Estimation ranges reflect real uncertainty - the upper bound is usually more accurate
"This will break things" means core system changes need testing time
"That's a hack" can be strategic if you're conscious about the tradeoff
"It's working on my machine" reveals environment parity problems, not incompetence
The goal isn't to become a technical expert. It's to ask the right follow-up questions that reveal constraints, tradeoffs, and risks.
Developers communicate in precision and probabilities. Founders communicate in outcomes and deadlines. When both sides translate actively, projects ship faster with fewer surprises.
If you're struggling to get straight answers from developers or drowning in technical jargon, you need someone who speaks both languages. At NextBuild, we work with non-technical founders every day, translating between business goals and technical implementation. See how we build MVPs with full transparency and founder-friendly communication.
Most marketing automation apps treat AI as a feature to add later. Here's why that approach fails—and how to architect AI-native marketing automation from day one.
