Hi Michael, *, On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:10:12AM +0000, Michael Meeks wrote: > On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 00:47 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > [...] > > And if you need to change your whole feature multiple times, then you > > ought to thing before. (and again this doesn't relate on how to actually > > code it, but on what the feature is supposed to do) > > Anyone that thinks they can sit down and design a perfect system and > then implement it, without some (perhaps substantial) degree of > iterative fixing is [ I think ] deluding themselves.
Again you seem to be too much fixated on how to actually code that feature. Again this is not what I expect. And whether you rework the whole features 3 times a month, or once after 3 Months is quite a difference, isn't it? > When I worked with > hardware design, it was -unheard-of- for revision A. hardware to work > without modifications. [ the hardware design flow including a ton of > design, simulation, review, etc. ]. Again you're confusing things I guess. The hardware specs reads: must support these or that features. Not: that chip must be placed here, run with this frequency, use the model from that manufacturer. Sure, you can (and will) make wrong decisions, but that's not the point. > There are some great examples of unsatisfactory usability in OO.o that > have specifications ( I guess packed with screenshots to match :-). Yes. I agree. But showing bad examples of something does not mean that the whole thing is bad. There are idiots in politics, but that doesn't mean politics itself is a bad thing. Those usability stuff would have been bad or even worse without a spec as well. So no point for you. > [...] ciao Christian -- NP: Metallica - Better Than You --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
