Lists Home |
Date Index |
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> Many developers believe that rigid, conservative (everything not
> permitted is forbidden) schemas are necessary to produce software.
> Nothing could be further from the truth. Programming with the
> expectation that the schema will be followed leads to brittle,
> inextensible, closed systems that break at the first whiff of change.
> Robust, flexible software that can handle extensions gracefully begins
> with the realization that any fixed schema is inadequate for some uses,
> and that one must be prepared to handle both schemaless and invalid
Baloney. You can simply modify the schema. That way all members of the
team use the same convention, from authors to template creators to
We have a base schema that can be used by client projects. Or they have
the option of creating their own which could include the base schema.
Say there are ten authors on a team and they all can create a 'poll'
content piece. The requirement is that a poll shows form fields if the
end-user has not taken it and results if they have. If a schema was
adhered to, templates could be written to handle this. If authors could
make up their own tags then there could be ten+ ways needed to style the
poll and create the necessary logic.
Have you ever worked in a team environment where work needed to get done
by a specific time?