It doesn't have to live for 30 years, but 5-10 would be nice. One might invest 2 years in developing and enhancing a complex application, by which time, if the platform is weak, it may no longer be runnable, or there may no longer be any customers. Not every application is a game knocked out in a sleepless 3-day session.
This has nothing to do with the waterfall vs agile -- I'm a firm believer in agile (especially since in practice it's how things eventually get done, even when programmers spend hours in meetings and writing reports telling their managers they're doing waterfall). Rather it's about facilitating that process. With a poor design you need some elements of the waterfall process, since otherwise you're tripping over yourself -- every change you make pops up 2 new problems. On May 26, 2:13 am, Ali Chousein <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, yes, I said exactly that, but you got it completely wrong. My > understanding of "good initial design" Dan was referring to, was > software which can live for the next 30 years or something like that > (those are the words he used, he can correct me if he was trying to > mean anything else). I definitely wouldn't pay a penny to a software > which has been "designed" to live for the next 30 years. Talking about > houses, cars etc. you are mixing apples with oranges. The waterfall > model of software development is based on the experiences from such > industries. Even though waterfall could be a good approach for > developing software for avionics for example, in consumer electronics > it doesn't work. If you don't take the iterative approach to > developing software (short release cycles etc), you are out of > business from day one, because most probably you are developing things > that customers are not willing to pay. Iterative approach to software > development might seem as lack of "good initial design" to some > people, but I'm not aware of a better alternative. That's what I was > referring to and it never occurred to me that we were discussing > building houses or cars in this platform. > > On May 26, 3:33 am, "Christopher Van Kirk" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm sorry, did you actually just say "If you say 'it doesn't have good > > initial design', I would consider that as a plus instead of shortcoming"? > > > Really? > > > Are you also in the habit of purchasing houses with bad foundations, cars > > with broken chasses, and work animals with broken backs? > > > I've heard some crazy statements in my day, but this one has to be near the > > top of the list. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ali Chousein > > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 6:27 AM > > To: Android Developers > > Subject: [android-developers] Re: Career as an Andoid developer. Is there > > any point? > > > Dan, you are looking from a very classical point of you. I mean the > > following: > > > 1. " how much impact these 'limiting decisions' will have in the future..." > > 2. " thanks to good initial design (or sometimes just clever emulation), are > > able to advance their platforms while still maintaining compatibility with > > apps that are 30 years old." > > > This apporach of initially designing everyhting, trying to think of every > > little detail, forecasting in the future etc. is dead in software > > development. It works in some classical industries like avionics, but in > > consumer electronics, forget it, you cannot build any decent product with > > this classical approach. (BTW, talking of forcasting, have you read the book > > 'The Black Swan'?) As others also mentioned, agile software development is > > the approach of building modern software, which can meet short time to > > market needs and changing requirements. Personally I don't see why Android > > is not capable of meeting changing requirements in the market. I have the > > impression that you have negative opinion of Android without even knowing > > much about the platform itself. Is your opinion based on hands- on software > > development experience on Android, or does it come from reading blogs > > (probably most of them written by foot soldiers of "that" company)? Sorry if > > I'm too blunt in asking such questions but you are talking very much in > > general terms without pinpointing any real shortcoming of the platform. If > > you say "it doesn't have good initial design", I would consider that as a > > plus instead of shortcoming, because I have better faith in teams which work > > agile, instead of waterfall. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
