<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:41 AM, Boudewijn Rempt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:boud@valdyas.org">boud@valdyas.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
</div>Yes -- it's a very interesting read, but even more interesting are the<br>
reactions in the blogosphere, for instance by our own Celeste :-). Still,<br>
there are problems this article doesn't take into account, like when there is<br>
just two hours in an evening to implement a feature, and the preliminary<br>
design phase, when done right, would already take three hours -- what then?</blockquote><div><br>Well - I spend most of my time in the commercial software world, where the answer is either suck it up and do what you can in 2 hours - or convince the powers that be for an extension.<br>
<br>For an open-source project, where there usually isn't as much pressure to release before it's ready, I'd say that the answer is to spend 2 or 3 weeks instead of one - or to find someone else interested to help...<br>
<br>I tend to agree with a lot of the items in the article - I think the core problem is that a lot of people don't find design (code or UI) as interesting as the actual coding - so they are more likely to just spend the majority of their time on the 'fun stuff'. <br>
<br>Warren<br><br></div></div><br></div>