David Guest wrote: > Tim Churches wrote: >> Richard Hosking wrote: >> >>> I reckon get *something* going as an OSS program without worrying too >>> much about the design. Make sure it is easily extensible and then >>> improve it later as there is takeup. >>> >> I'm not sure that one can have the latter (easily extensible) without >> the former (worrying too much about the design). >> >> However, it is certainly possible to do quick-and-dirty systems and then >> discard them, treating each iteration as a more advanced prototype than >> the last - but it takes a certain dispassionate ruthlessness to toss >> hard work in the rubbish bin after extracting the useful lessons from it. >> > > Haven't been to the movies yet, Tim? > > http://blog.scribestudio.com/articles/2006/07/03/martin-fowler-railsconf-2006-keynote-address > http://bloggingrailsconf.com/articles/2006/06/23/martin-fowler-keynote
So many movies these days require suspension of disbelief, don't they David. Look, go for it guys, I am happy to be surprised. But no movies of people doing keynotes on software they've never used, show me the real thing. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
