Steve Dekorte wrote:

> That's about right. Unfortunately people tend to be too short sighted
> to see that effectively dealing with change is our most important problem.
> Most refuse to accept that change is even something that should happen.
> When it does, it's frowned upon as a sign of an initial poor design(as
> if any design could not be improved).
>
> The thing that distinguishes software from all other forms of engineering is
> that change can be much less expensive. Even so, much of computer
> science has been focused on decreasing change - provability, analysis, etc resulting
> in static, typed languages, a myriad of methodologies and a high rate of project
> failure. The pursuit of systems that are "good" from the start has been done
> without considering whether it could be cheaper to make systems in which it's easier
> to make mistakes but have a higher rate of improvement because the lower cost
> of change.

I like those thoughts.  It's obvious, and something we take for granted, in the highly
flexibleand exploratory world of Smalltalk.  As soon as I read it I knew you were right.

I think people are "wired" or trained in different ways.  Some folks excel at
exploratory
kinds of development while others really need that sense of safety they get from having
thought through things very carefully at the beginning.

I tend towards the "dive in and see if I really understand and what can I learn
approach".
But I think that comes from having learned that it is safe to do so because of the basic

smart things that have been learned so far that have kept me from drowning so far if I
make mistakes.  I realize that my approach may not be a good model for other to follow.
Too bad really.  I enjoy it this way.