Noons wrote:
>
> A "site standard" for software source is not a standard, it's
> a monopoly.
>
> > Recently his successor admitted that they'd had 10 out of 10 projects
> > fail. In every case the prototype looked great; the developers could
> > never handle the transition from demo code to something robust.
>
> Like, something that could actually cope with a load? :D
>
That's one variant. Other variants: can migrate to our 'production
platofrm'; has error handling; has security; has audit mechanisms;
has reports; can be extended to include useful functionality, not just
pretty functionality; and so on.
Received on Thu Jan 01 2004 - 12:06:30 CST
