D : Not for me anymore

[rm]

Karen Lanrap wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
> 
>> You generally flow down the steps from top to bottom, but at
>> *any* stage you can get loops back up higher.
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> Assume an idealized situation where you take over a team of 10 
> designers and 490 coders.
> 
> Your team has projects A and B in the pipeline.
> 
> Project A is in the beginning of the design phase, planned duration 
> two years, and project B is in the beginning of the coding phase, 
> planned duration also two years.
> 
> your remaining budgets:
> for designing project A   4,000,000 $
> for coding project B    147,000,000 $
> 
> This means every month delay will cost you at least 6,000,000 $
> 
> Now one of your 490 coders comes to you saying: "I am unable to 
> implement this because of erroneous design."
> 
> Are you willing to "sell" this detection to your management, your 
> sponsor or your loan officer?
> 
> And if you change positions: are you willing to "buy" such statements 
> from yourself?
> 
> "Dear Sir, I have a plan to produce software that only costs you 
> 150,000,000$. My main production plan consists of repeated designing 
> and coding, because every design is flawed. But although every design 
> is flawed I am sure I do not need more money than what I said 
> before." 

please tell me which firm you're acquainted with, it's certainly a
criterion to take into account whenever I've dealings with them.

I've seen the thing you propose as the most normal business in the world
first hand. You know what happens? People do it, but leave after a year
or so, the software is a mess, and non-maintainable, non-extendable.
The farther you're in the cycle the more it costs to backtrack, and
sometimes you do not have a choice, but with every hack you put in
place, you subtract some of the lifetime of your software, and I'm not
talking about D. D, C++, Python all can be used in whatever scenario you
want.

roel