A public forum for discussing the design of software, from the user interface to the code architecture. Now closed.
Joel said in http://www.joelonsoftware.com/design/1stDraft/01.html "The only goal that usually doesn't conflict is the requirement that whatever you design be really, really cheap."
Not for me. The requirement that overrides all others is that the design is safe (testable and tested to have no unforeseen side-effects.)
But then I have designed software for nuclear power stations.
Snapper (maker of lawnmowers) has decided not to go the "cheaply built" route, and decided to no longer sell through WalMart.
It's an interesting read about a clash of cultures. You have the CEO of a successful company meeting in a VP's office at WalMart, where he's required to sit on flimsy lawn furniture.
Well actually all the other goals tend to conflict to the final cost and thus with the cheapness of the product. So, I would not say "The only goal that usually doesn't conflict is the requirement that whatever you design be really, really cheap."
In the other hand, there is the fashion technology market, those guys are not going to pay a dime if the product is not costly enough to justify the report papers that reads "We have implemented/buy/adquired the XYZ technology with a cost of many zillions dollars".
It seems to me that this was a typo. Surely Joel meant to say "The only goal that always conflicts with all others is the requirement that whatever you design be really, really cheap." Right? As stated originally, it makes utterly no sense whatsoever.
Friday, January 27, 2006
This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.Other recent topics
Powered by FogBugz