Comments on: The danger of feature-driven design http://www.pixelmonkey.org/2009/12/22/the-danger-of-feature-driven-design?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-danger-of-feature-driven-design Andrew J. Montalenti's Blog Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:43:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Erick Galassi http://www.pixelmonkey.org/2009/12/22/the-danger-of-feature-driven-design/comment-page-1#comment-91636 Erick Galassi Thu, 04 Nov 2010 17:32:09 +0000 http://www.pixelmonkey.org/?p=504#comment-91636 Hi Andrew, both Rework (37signals.com/rework) and Getting Real (gettingreal.37signals.com) from 37signals are excellent book examples of startup's good parts. Hope that helps. Hi Andrew, both Rework (37signals.com/rework) and Getting Real (gettingreal.37signals.com) from 37signals are excellent book examples of startup’s good parts. Hope that helps.

]]> By: pixelmonkey http://www.pixelmonkey.org/2009/12/22/the-danger-of-feature-driven-design/comment-page-1#comment-76671 pixelmonkey Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:40:25 +0000 http://www.pixelmonkey.org/?p=504#comment-76671 I think that's Chapter 3, "The Most Beautiful Code I Never Wrote", by Jon Bentley. I wrote a reflection on <em>Beautiful Code</em> elsewhere on my blog. Check it out: <blockquote> I don’t recommend people read Beautiful Code to try to imitate some of the code described therein. Instead, I recommend you read it as a sociological or psychological study of what makes proud and bright software engineers tick. For example, for Kernighan it is the simplicity and minimalism that is embodied in UNIX. For Matz, it is the notion that the programming language should be as syntactically flexible as our real languages are. For simonpj, it’s that complicated can be made easy, given the right abstractions. And for Jon Bentley, in one of the more thought-provoking essays in the book, beauty and elegance was only perceived as the size of his code shrank. </blockquote> from <a href="/2009/02/28/beautiful-code-and-a-beautiful-bug" rel="nofollow">Beautiful Code and a Beautiful Bug</a> I think that’s Chapter 3, “The Most Beautiful Code I Never Wrote”, by Jon Bentley. I wrote a reflection on Beautiful Code elsewhere on my blog. Check it out:

I don’t recommend people read Beautiful Code to try to imitate some of the code described therein. Instead, I recommend you read it as a sociological or psychological study of what makes proud and bright software engineers tick. For example, for Kernighan it is the simplicity and minimalism that is embodied in UNIX. For Matz, it is the notion that the programming language should be as syntactically flexible as our real languages are. For simonpj, it’s that complicated can be made easy, given the right abstractions. And for Jon Bentley, in one of the more thought-provoking essays in the book, beauty and elegance was only perceived as the size of his code shrank.

from Beautiful Code and a Beautiful Bug

]]> By: Keith B http://www.pixelmonkey.org/2009/12/22/the-danger-of-feature-driven-design/comment-page-1#comment-76606 Keith B Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:20:45 +0000 http://www.pixelmonkey.org/?p=504#comment-76606 There's a great chapter in Beautiful Code where the author spends the entire chapter making an algorithm more reliable and faster by progressively making it shorter, without making it less readable. The benefits of such simplicity extends far beyond feature lists. One of my favorite quotes from the chapter was from Blaise Pascal: "If I had more time, I would've written you a shorter letter." There’s a great chapter in Beautiful Code where the author spends the entire chapter making an algorithm more reliable and faster by progressively making it shorter, without making it less readable. The benefits of such simplicity extends far beyond feature lists. One of my favorite quotes from the chapter was from Blaise Pascal: “If I had more time, I would’ve written you a shorter letter.”

]]>