Re: Do you use formal project planning?

--- On Thu, 20 Jun 96 11:07:44 MDT Jack Parker wrote: }> }>[snip] } }Not as much as I should and I regret it and have reason to. Just because }you can turn on a dime - and probably especially because you can - there's }no excuse for NOT planning what you're going to do. } }I especially recommend: } } data model } standardized program shells (skeletons) } standardized naming conventions } standardized update procedures - these can and perhaps should be SPLs } standardized make/rcs layout } formal code inspection process } and let's not forget a roadmap that indicates where you are going } }This makes maintenance down the road SO much easier and in fact increases }your ability to turn on a dime down the road as well. If everybody cuts }loose on their own your in for a mess. Setting up these things might take a }month or six weeks - but saves a good 50% of frustration time later on. }When I need to write new code now I have a make file into which I have to }enter two lines - I have some standardized libraries and globals that I can }count on - [risnip] Extremely well put Jack! May I add to your list omogeneous source file contents (or is it this that you mean by a road map?) and standardized file naming. I don't use make (at least, for my two huge projects) but a custom shell script that does the very same job. Standardized file naming, together with automatic file name generation, save me the trouble of eliminating obsolete references from a make file, or inserting new ones, not to mention the ability of adding my default application skeleton to a new app with absolutely no effort. My Lit.32 marco ____________________________________________________________________________ rem radioterapia, which I immeritately manage, seldom agrees with what I say marco greco (Catania, Italy) Work: marcog@ctonline.it rem radioterapia 39 95 447828 fax 446558 (was mar.greco@agora.stm.it) Achea 39 95 503117