On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 13:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 07:58:01PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:53:26 -0500 > >> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Seriously, though, OO languages, being born of academia, were designed > >> > *not* to be quick-'n-dirty languages. They were designed with > >> > large projects in mind (the whole Software Design Life Cycle bit). > >> > > SDLC! What a joke!!!!! > > I've never seen a large project managed in any Corporation that didn't > utterly suck.
The SDLC and corporate politics are independent. Academics should take corporate politics into consideration when coming up with these theories. > The notion that software development is more Organic is closer to the > truth. Even with the best planning, you typically will run software > development along the path of: > > Design it > Build it > Deploy it > Rewrite from scratch and have something that works. With tight budgets and tight schedules, I've *never* seen a project rewritten. > Modify from there as needed to evolve with the understanding of and needs > of the applications 'itch'. > > That's an evolutionary process. See my above comments regarding the SDLC. They are the same. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jefferson, LA USA Spit in one hand, and wish for peace in the other. Guess which is more effective... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
