[techtalk] More UML vs XP talk.

[jenn at simegen.com]

This, and two others, were returned as undeliverable during what seems
to have been a temporary glitch at the linuxchix end. Sorry if I repost.
-------- Original Message --------

Shari wrote:

 > The intial functionality we design gets stripped in order to meet
 > dates.  Part of me thinks, if we simplify from the very start, maybe 
we can
 > avoid this.  For example, code only the bare minimum functionality 
needed;
 > assume we can always add stuff later; don't create frameworks, etc.  
I do UML
 > design models like crazy, but so much doesn't get implemented, it 
almost doesn't
 > seem worth it.

It looks like one of the following is happening:
* the clients are asking for more than they're willing to pay for
* someone is under-quoting (time or money)
* someone is writing version-2 or version-3 specs for a version-1 product

If it's the first two, the fix is obvious. :)

If it's the third (or the third combined with the first or second),
think about versions as well as functionality. Write a 'wishlist'
section of the spec, or a 'later versions' section. Code with an eye to
the wishlist, but only expecting to produce the basic functionality.


System design CAN limit functionality, it CAN prevent something from
being added later. So a wishlist IS important. But don't do a complete
specification for things which aren't going to be in this version. It
just leads to burn-out.



Jenn V.
-- 
      "Do you ever wonder if there's a whole section of geek culture
              you miss out on by being a geek?" - Dancer.

jenn at simegen.com     Jenn Vesperman     http://www.simegen.com/~jenn/


-- 
     "Do you ever wonder if there's a whole section of geek culture
             you miss out on by being a geek?" - Dancer.

jenn at simegen.com     Jenn Vesperman     http://www.simegen.com/~jenn/