• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: The myth of 80/20
• From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
• Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 08:53:48 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1078419138.24514.146.camel@delleric>
• Organization: liveSTORYBOARD
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F428@h...> <1078419138.24514.146.camel@delleric>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Eric van der Vlist wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-03-04 at 17:23, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 
>>It's easy to conceive of why 80/20 dominates given 
>>incomplete or ambiguous requirements and such.  Just 
>>remember that the alternative is to do all the work 
>>under one root, and in our world, that means a framework 
>>capable of subsuming all of the objects needed to 
>>paint that screen and keep updating it from data stores.
> 
> 
> That's not really what I meant. 
> 
> 80/20 is fine except that we usually have no measurement to evaluate on
> which side of the 80/20 frontier a feature is 


sure we do. it is called money

-Francisco D'Anconia

:)

and 80/20 becomes just an
> easy way to reject features we don't like.
> 
> Digression: for programmers an alternative to 80/20 is XP (extreme
> programming). Unfortunately that doesn't seem easy to adapt for
> specification authors.
> 
> Eric

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The myth of 80/20
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • RE: The myth of 80/20
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • RE: The myth of 80/20
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: The myth of 80/20
• Next by Date: Re: CSS Scoping in XML Namespaces
• Previous by thread: RE: The myth of 80/20
• Next by thread: Re: The myth of 80/20
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread