Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > > > forwards a lot to Python 3.0!-). But -- the "dream" solution would be > > to work closely with customers from the start, XP-style, so features go > > into the code in descending order of urgence and importance and it's > > hardly ever necessary to remove them. > > We do that often with two of our customers here. After the first changes, > they asked for more. And them some other and when it finally ended, the > project was like we had suggested, but instead of doing this directly, the > client wanted to waste more money... :-( Even if we earnt more money, I'd > rather have the first proposal accepted instead of wasting time working on > what they called "essential features".
The customer is part of the team; if any player in the team is not performing well, the whole team's performance will suffer -- that's hardly surprising. You may want to focus more on _teaching_ the customer to best play his part in the feature-selection game, in the future... not easy, but important. > > But if I had do nominate ONE use case for "making code smaller" it would > > be: "Once, And Only Once" (aka "Don't Repeat Yourself"). Scan your code > > ceaselessly mercilessly looking for duplications and refactor just as > > mercilessly when you find them, "abstracting the up" into functions, > > base classes, etc... > > And I'd second that. Code can be drastically reduced this way and even > better: it can be made more generic, more useful and robustness is improved. I'll second all of your observations on this!-) Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
