Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Yup, this is a pretty fundamental divide, but I think it's more than a > "personal thing" There was a thread (well, Leigh Dodds and I corresponded > a bit) at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200112/msg00778.html and > http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200201/msg00006.html trying > to define > decision criteria for when a "strong" (up-front design, strongly > typed, tightly > coupled) or "loose" (build it simple and let it evolve, untyped, > loosely coupled) > approach makes the most sense. I remember the original discussion and remember thinking at the time that it provided some valuable insights. One other consideration that just came to me was knowledge of the problem domain. Well understood domain -> strong Poorly understood domain -> tight If a company is building its 15th X and has 'experts' who deeply understand the problem domain of X, then there are benefits that can be achieved from an 'engineered' approach. I don't know if Al works in this sort of an environment. But this is certainly an environment where an 'engineered' approach can be better suited to a rapidly changing requirements, etc. In contrast if the company is building the first Y in the world, then it might find an XP approach much more suitable. David
|
