September 20 2024 11:45:42
News Photos Forum Search Contact History Linkbox Calendar
 
Forum Threads
Newest Threads
AI discussion
Starship orbital lau...
Covers that Rock
The Tech billionaire...
Covers that never sh...
Besti ella størsti ...
Good music that peop...
UFO incidents
Great live performances
Guitar playing on Yo...
Linkbox
Newest Links
Another reason Rings... (0)
Meet Your Second Wife (1)
Why this neurosurgeo... (0)
Helm's Deep not a su... (0)
The Rings Of Power S... (0)
The Starliner spacec... (0)
"Interpolating" songs.. (0)
Richard Dawkins face... (1)
The Deadliest City o... (0)
74 year old sit down... (0)
Random Photo
Member Poll
Should I watch "The Rings of Power"?

Yes

No

LOL

You must login to vote.
Link
 CategoryLink
Rating
InterestSome solid programming advice imho
3

Comments
Vuzman on June 06 2019 08:41:31
This is just another way of expressing the ancient development principle of "Make it work, make it right, make it fast", also expressed as "Make it work, then make it better".

This is why we have TDD, refactoring, etc. It's definitely a good principle, but, to play devil's advocate, the functional requirements are fulfilled after the first step, so if you're on a deadline, why make it better, when it already works? Project leaders (and PO's, customers, etc.) have a notoriously hard time understanding why you need more time to do more work, when it already works!
Grizlas on June 06 2019 10:27:01
Short term will almost always win out over long term in competitive business scenarios, I think. At least - that is my experience smiley

It is hard to justify the extra time, especially if there is any doubt at all about the future of the product.

But what I like most about this, is the more general idea of not committing yourself to a certain design before later on. I think this is a common mistake many companies make. Take, for instance, the area of 2nd generation nuclear reactors and especially molten salt reactors. There are about 20-30 competing designs already in development, that all have in common the fact that they cant get regulatory approval, because they haven't been tested in a real fission environment - something of a catch-22. On the other side, you have some researchers from the Netherlands that have no design yet, but are instead trying to get a simple salt loop placed inside the pool of an existing reactor, so they can study molten salt chemistry and how materials react to it. Their argument is, that you cannot make a good reactor design until you understand the quite complex chemistry, metallurgy etc. of the materials involved. I think this is the better approach - get as far as you can without committing to a specific design, so that you, later on, can make better decisions.
Post Comment
Please Login to Post a Comment.
Login
Username

Password



Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.
Last Seen Users
OKJones00:20:34
Vuzman02:28:04
Torellion03:18:24
Boddin04:10:54
Grizlas19:17:26
Norlander19:24:15
Spiff 2 weeks
fjallsbak 3 weeks
Laluu 5 weeks
Anubis_fo 9 weeks
Obituaries
You must login to post a message.

Vuzman
26/08/2024 07:45
Try the google search box

Grizlas
24/08/2024 23:30
doubtful

OKJones
24/08/2024 22:08
does the search function even work?

Grizlas
24/12/2023 15:06
Gleðilig jól

Norlander
24/12/2023 10:09
Gleðilig jól!

Norlander
29/10/2023 19:16
:/

Grizlas
29/10/2023 11:35
RIP Matthew Perry.

Norlander
25/08/2023 19:22
That's not from the chess scene, it's Omar to Wee Bay, 2 mins into this clip: https://www.youtube.com/w
atch?v=LF0Xt6b525E


Vuzman
25/08/2023 18:11
That chess scene is forever seared into my memory...

Norlander
24/08/2023 20:03
You quoting the Wire, wow smiley