On Thu, July 21, 2005 1:25 pm, Ted Husted said: > If the application isn't important enough to code some trials, then > it's not important enough to sweat the decision either. Pick one and > have at it.
At the risk of going off-topic, I have to say I really don't agree with that statement. I think I understand what your saying, but my experience would never allow me to say that. The business wants that new product NOW. They want the efficiency gains, the added functionality, whatever, NOW. They would say it is extremely important. But, they tend to not really care too much about the technology. In such cases, the application IS important enough to code trials, but the business won't allow you to but they STILL want you to sweat the decisions! This is a typical way of doing things, going by my experience. Even if its the largest initiative of the year for the company, the most important project, there is still a deadline, usually and unreasonable one, and taking the time to properly evaluate options isn't always given. I certainly don't deny that doing as you say, coding a representative part of the system both ways and then deciding, is the right way to go. But it just isn't realistic, at least in my experience. If you are in an environment where you can do that then you are a luckier man than I and I say Ted is 100% right in such an environment. If you are in, shall we say, a DIFFERENT environment, then having white papers and comparisons and example apps that help you decide WITHOUT having to do as Ted suggests is an extremely valuable thing. While its hard to separate the propoganda from the objective statement, it is many times the only choice. Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
