in reply to Re: The dangers of perfection, and why you should stick with good enough
in thread The dangers of perfection, and why you should stick with good enough

The first order of business is to make the software work. Now. Today. Tomorrow. Next week. But not 3 months or 6 months from now. Once the software "works", you can review it. Its functionality. The source code. The backup, maintenance and testing. You can highlight the weaknesses, prioritise them and fix them.
This sounds like a process (and a best practice as well). Doesn't it?
  • Comment on Re^2: The dangers of perfection, and why you should stick with good enough

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: The dangers of perfection, and why you should stick with good enough
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 11, 2008 at 13:12 UTC

    Hm. I don't think it does. As it suggests a goal or set of goals--not how to achieve them.

    But even if it could be formalised into something approaching a process or best practice, I would still rail against its imposition, despite being the one who suggested it. Especially on existing, productive teams that currently use other methods.

    Any methodology is better than no methodology. And, at their best, all methodologies--waterfall, TDD, RAD, Use cases, SSADM et al--all have their merits when applied properly to particular projects. The problems arise when a methodology is seen to be successful for one project and is mandated for all subsequent projects without recourse to logic and common sense on the ground. Once formalised, and without the considered application of human intelligence on a case by case basis, they can become millstones around the necks of the people to whom they are mandated.

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Meditations