<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: When the rabbit hole is a dead end</title>
	<link>http://www.mcdonaldland.info/2008/01/16/when-the-rabbit-hole-is-a-dead-end/</link>
	<description>A magical discussion of software, economics, and other assorted theories. but mainly software.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:25:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://www.mcdonaldland.info/2008/01/16/when-the-rabbit-hole-is-a-dead-end/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:32:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mcdonaldland.info/2008/01/16/when-the-rabbit-hole-is-a-dead-end/#comment-5</guid>
		<description>Good subject. Mark and I were just musing over the same sort of thing recently having realized we were effectively on iteration THREE of the core architecture for our project.

It really took us getting most of the way there twice before we really nailed the design and came up with something which was succinct.

We were fortunate in that we had the time to allow ourselves to step back, collect what was good, and move on with another approach. Most teams aren't so lucky, and that is how the cumbersome, frankensteinian applications we know and love are born.

"Good simple code is hard to write," and it takes time. Time, unfortunately, is the one thing our teams are rarely afforded. You get what you pay for, in that respect.

I think every project we undertake should be allotted enough time to account for at least one throway attempt at solving the problem. An alternative would be to produce complete requirements/specifications and technical designs beforehand; but that sort of thing only happens in the movies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good subject. Mark and I were just musing over the same sort of thing recently having realized we were effectively on iteration THREE of the core architecture for our project.</p>
<p>It really took us getting most of the way there twice before we really nailed the design and came up with something which was succinct.</p>
<p>We were fortunate in that we had the time to allow ourselves to step back, collect what was good, and move on with another approach. Most teams aren&#8217;t so lucky, and that is how the cumbersome, frankensteinian applications we know and love are born.</p>
<p>&#8220;Good simple code is hard to write,&#8221; and it takes time. Time, unfortunately, is the one thing our teams are rarely afforded. You get what you pay for, in that respect.</p>
<p>I think every project we undertake should be allotted enough time to account for at least one throway attempt at solving the problem. An alternative would be to produce complete requirements/specifications and technical designs beforehand; but that sort of thing only happens in the movies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.195 seconds -->
