On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 17:56:35 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+------------------
| > in lieu of consensus, i'm probably just going to play with some stuff on
| > my own. you guys will probably hate it but oh well :)
|
| you need to think about it first and find out how to do it. no code needed
| for that. maybe you just try finding the really tricky problems before you
| start coding. it needs practice and there are several techniques etc. meant
| to help people with that (for example UML models, objects life cycles, ...).
| It might be no fun in the beginning, but it enables you to work on bigger
| projects. And to actually succeed.
+------------------
I'm of the opinion that UML is yet another good idea that has been
elevated to the status of Golden Hammer. I've been in groups where
full analysis approaches have lead to way too much navel gazing,
missed deadlines, and lots of finger pointing. Plus such approaches
do not fair well in the open source community because of the lack of
central authority.
I've come to be a fan of the XP approach and it's reliance on
customer stories, a spike implementation, automated testing and
refactoring. This closely follows the typical life cycle of most
open source development. And it works well with Perl.
So my question is this: Are there projects along the way to an
object layer that can be implemented and be useful by them selves
without needing the whole infrastructure?
--
Chris Fedde
rough consensus and running code.
