Re^2: OpEd: Programming is not Team Sports

++ "...and none of them are changing."

This. It seems that it is the rare project that doesn't have changing requirements of some form.

When I was in college, lo these many years ago, I did house construction for a while. It was not uncommon to hear "Can you (move|add|remove) this (door|window|wall|other)?" in the course of things. As it's a lot easier to (move|add|remove) things before you've run the electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or closed up the walls than it is after-- getting the feedback a.s.a.p. is essential to minimizing cost/schedule.

Actually, now that I think of it, not everything WAS on the blueprints as the assumption seemed to be that the contractor would figure out the missing details as they went along.

Comment on Re^2: OpEd: Programming is not Team Sports

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: OpEd: Programming is not Team Sports by Anonymous Monk on May 26, 2012 at 07:17 UTC
Actually, now that I think of it, not everything WAS on the blueprints as the assumption seemed to be that the contractor would figure out the missing details as they went along. They call it "code", it dictates all your options, they have inspectors for it, and you have to know the "code" better than the inspectors, because invariably they'll try to deny permit approval for code violations	[reply]
Re^4: OpEd: Programming is not Team Sports by gsiems (Deacon) on May 28, 2012 at 02:23 UTC
For much of it that is true. However there were a few occassions where no amount of code would account for the missing/overlooked pieces. My favorite was the house where there was no way to run the mechanical to most of the house without adding some additional wall to put it in.	[reply]