I feel for you, man. This is where I was a few years ago--I thought it was a fact of life that the end product would vary greatly from the proposed system. But that's before I started using an architectural approach to systems. Now they all look like the plan. That's the way it's supposed to work. But you have to commit to the planning before you can benefit from it.
- Jeff On Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 06:37 PM, Roger B. wrote: > > Jeff Peters wrote: >> The >> question to ask those who think Fusedocs are a waste of time is how >> much >> time they >> spend integrating their application after the code is written. > > No more than I would spend putting together pointless preliminary > documentation. :D Far less, actually, since the chance of that > preliminary documentation actually describing my end product is > somewhere between slim and none... I'd need to add in some time to > rewrite the Fusedocs to match what reality hath wrought. > > Which isn't to suggest that Fusedocs (or something similar) are > pointless... keeping track of the data flowing in and out of a given > fuse is A Good Thing, IMO. It's the do-it-up-front part that I can do > without. > > -- > Roger > > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrFMa.bV0Kx9 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
