Cool .. then I can't wait to see what you have!
I agree about the reduced project members. Ours project team is our CEO,
myself, the Jr. developers, and the end users (eventually). Project
managers just get in the way ;)
<blink>Rock the rockin' house on your rockin horse in a house, rockin' Mr.
Nelson</blink>
Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: extreme programming
> YES! I'm 100% behind you. That is exactly what this tool is attempting
> to do, make designing an application easier and a hell of a lot more
> organized. It currently goes about 6-7 steps beyond what wireframes
> offer, giving assistance for what needs to be accomplished next
> depending on who you are. It's pretty damn useful, although it'll take
> about 3 versions before it'll offer the 10-fold increase in
> productivity.
>
> As far as reducing people.... YES YES YES! No more project managers!
> (Sorry guys) I boiled it down to:
>
> Application Architects
> FuseCoders
> End-Users
> The Boss
>
> This may be right, it may be wrong. At this point it doesn't really
> matter, we'll figure it out after giving it a try. I'm going to put the
> finishing touches on this scaled down version and try and have something
> next week to play with.
>
> Steve
>
> "Janty.com" wrote:
> >
> > -- snip --
> > > The next problem would be very clear: "how can we reduce the
> > > time it takes to do design?"
> > -- snip --
> > > I'm attempting to improve quality by
> > > having programmers deliver what the client wants.
> > -- snip --
> >
> > Well, that's the real problem in my opinion. The client never knows
what
> > they want until they can see what can be done, then they want more and
more
> > and .. then wouldn't it be cool if we could do this for them and, oh ..
by
> > the way, I'm sure you can do this too while you are at it ..... At that
> > point, you risk falling into the never-ending software development
project
> > .... you know the one .. where the client changes their mind/adds new
stuff 3
> > times every day durring the development cycle.
> >
> > I don't see how you could speed this up. This is our 2nd version of
this
> > product. This time through, we didn't bother consulting them and
decided to
> > make a core set of components that we *know* they need. We are going to
> > finish these and then release them and then add on new stuff while the
> > client(s) use what we gave them and *then* tell us what they want/need.
> > Still, we didn't find out what they *really* needed until after a lot of
> > down time due to interviews, changed minds, and red tape in general.
> >
> > In my experience, the coding is the easy part. Trying to get out of
these
> > bozos *what* we need to code is the part that has caused the most
delays.
> > Software would always be perfect and easy to make and easy to use if it
> > weren't for people ;) Now, if what you are working on will reduce that,
> > then I'd be way less skepticle of shortening the conception-to-market
cycle
> > :)
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Fusebox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 8:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: extreme programming
> >
> > > You might be right, but even if it did take 58 days of planning and 2
> > > days of coding, we would have solved one problem, and caused another
and
> > > that's ok. The next problem would be very clear: "how can we reduce
the
> > > time it takes to do design?" I don't think that will be the case, this
> > > tool isn't coming from revolutionary techniques, it just puts them all
> > > together into a single application that can be track the application
> > > through it's life cycle.
> > >
> > > Plus, I'm not only going for speed, I'm attempting to improve quality
by
> > > having programmers deliver what the client wants. Being skeptical is
> > > perfectly fine, this is something that has been perceived as
impossible
> > > for about 50 years.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > "Janty.com" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > True .. but if the application and the documentation was *that*
> > complete,
> > > > the coding would technicly already be done. All it would require
then
> > would
> > > > be to have some monkeys that can read, push the right keys and there
you
> > go.
> > > > Sure it could be done in 2 days at that point, but I really don't
think
> > it
> > > > would change the conception-to-completion time of the project that
much.
> > > > All it sounds like you would be doing is trading coding time for
design
> > time
> > > > ... that's certainly a good idea, but I'm still convinced that the
> > project we
> > > > are working on would take 2 months ... 58 days planning and
documenting
> > and
> > > > 2 days coding ;)
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 1:32 PM
> > > > > > To: Fusebox
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Fwd: extreme programming
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well my thinking is that the the 2 days would not actually begin
> > until
> > > > > > the specification was complete.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just like when building a house, you don't hire the contractor
to
> > build
> > > > > > the house until the architect is finished drawing it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You'd be surprised at how fast you could build an application
when
> > it is
> > > > > > down to that level of detail.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
