Buck,
As a programmer, if I'm changing how something works, there should be a reason for it. This appears to me to be like the Ctrl-F tabbing issue - an unplanned result from another change. "Vague specs" for how something was initially developed doesn't really matter - what was delivered was delivered and that's what people are used to. Yes, design can change, ideally with a reason given.
In regards to alphabetical sorting, I'm willing to bet there are a lot of different preferences people have for how it should work. (For me, I'd prefer that it didn't change the sort order for things like "Subprocedures" and "Global Definitions" but only for the items underneath.
Kurt Anderson
Sr. Programmer/Analyst - Application Development, Service Delivery Platform
-----Original Message-----
From: WDSCI-L [mailto:wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Buck Calabro
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 10:47 AM
To: wdsci-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [WDSCI-L] Outline Sorting
On 1/8/2015 8:49 PM, Stuart Rowe wrote:
Odd for sure. Seems to be odd in a different way after each update.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Kurt Anderson wrote:
Does it seem odd to anyone else that now when you sort alphabetically
it puts the subprocedures above everything else? Also, it's not like
it's placing it into its alphabetical location, so I don't know why
it's doing what it's doing.
Kurt Anderson
I try to do frequent releases. It seems to me that the RDi developers are trying the same experiment. Outline View is one of those features where the requirements were originally pretty vague, and as we use it, our needs and wants are firming up. It's pretty normal (in my
experience) for a newish feature like this to change with every release.
No, as an end user I don't really like having to tweak my mental workflow with every release, but I ask my end user community one question that helps solidify their thoughts:
Long cycle waterfall will deliver a finished product in one gigantic release in 2 years. That release will upend pretty much all of your workflow, and the functionality will be what we all agreed upon - in writing - two years ago. The downside: when you ask for something more in that 2 year time period you will push back the delivery date again and again.
Short cycle agile will deliver hundreds of changes, one function at a time. We don't expect that you'll completely understand your requirements, so we expect that each function will get refined - often.
Each release will give you the top priority function on your want list so if the business needs change you can pivot on one month boundaries.
It'll take 2 years before you get all the pieces you think you need today, but at the end of those 2 years we'll have delivered only the genuinely important changes to you. The downside: your application will be constantly changing - working, as far as you can tell us, but changing and changing again as your definition of 'working' changes.
Which would you prefer?
--
--buck
'I had nothing to offer anybody except my own confusion' - Jack Kerouac
--
This is the Rational Developer for IBM i / Websphere Development Studio Client for System i & iSeries (WDSCI-L) mailing list To post a message email: WDSCI-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/wdsci-l
or email: WDSCI-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/wdsci-l.
midrange.com
