<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Solve the problem at hand</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.praj.com.au/solve-the-problem-at-hand/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.praj.com.au/solve-the-problem-at-hand/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2010 02:19:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Lins</title>
		<link>http://www.praj.com.au/solve-the-problem-at-hand/comment-page-1/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>Lins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:54:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.praj.com.au/?p=257#comment-54</guid>
		<description>I love this. It fits in exactly with my new Procrastinate Not mentality. Which I&#039;m finding exceptionally hard to implement when you keep writing interesting blogs. And sticking in interesting links. 

Absolutely unit tests are a luxury. The simplest test is: What do you want it to do? Does it do it? Brilliant. Now give it to a couple of users. Can they break it? Done! I&#039;m done with faffing. Coding for a million what-ifs (especially ones that aren&#039;t super-obvious) takes time and effort and costs the client money. It&#039;s the same with coding for a super-flexible system with features that will probably never be used. I&#039;m sure we&#039;d all be a lot happier if we can just think about what is actually needed then deliver a good product at a low cost and improve on it later IF need be. And as I&#039;ve always said &quot;you can&#039;t code for stupidity&quot;. Just like you can&#039;t insure against it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love this. It fits in exactly with my new Procrastinate Not mentality. Which I&#8217;m finding exceptionally hard to implement when you keep writing interesting blogs. And sticking in interesting links. </p>
<p>Absolutely unit tests are a luxury. The simplest test is: What do you want it to do? Does it do it? Brilliant. Now give it to a couple of users. Can they break it? Done! I&#8217;m done with faffing. Coding for a million what-ifs (especially ones that aren&#8217;t super-obvious) takes time and effort and costs the client money. It&#8217;s the same with coding for a super-flexible system with features that will probably never be used. I&#8217;m sure we&#8217;d all be a lot happier if we can just think about what is actually needed then deliver a good product at a low cost and improve on it later IF need be. And as I&#8217;ve always said &#8220;you can&#8217;t code for stupidity&#8221;. Just like you can&#8217;t insure against it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
