That's where techniques like wireframing and prototyping come in. You don't
start coding 'til you have the definition completed. It's up to the architect
to help steer the client toward completion of requirements so as to avoid the
never-ending addition of features. "Let's hold that idea for the next version"
is a very useful statement.
No, you (usually) can't build and app once and be done with it forever--clients
aren't like that. But you can define the development cycle clearly enough to
know what you're going to build *exactly* before you start coding.
- Jeff
On 5 Apr 2001, at 22:12, Janty.com wrote:
> 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
