5 year application development

My question is not technical. It is rather a philosophical and truly personal preference. I am developing and developing an application (web + desktop), and it just happened to me, and I was wondering if you guys (programmers and designers) have ever come across this before:

Some designers believe that applications that will work after 3-5 years will be reflected on them without any additional changes. As a programmer, I know that this never happens. Small cosmetic changes occur, but usually they die in a year or two, over time there will be changes that will require major changes, and eventually you will make a new application.

Given the rapid changes in technology, developing an application 5 years down the line is rather absurd, IMHO. Well, I do not mean the construction, but the idea that this application will work for 5 years, and the belief that we do not need to create a new one, I think, lives in a stupid paradise. I mean, really, fellow programmers, most mission-critical or basic small applications that have a running thread are usually re-created / restructured / reorganized / re-encoded a few years down the line anyway.

So my question is why should I take this approach to make it the perfect application that will work for a decade. This is really stupid because you know that technology will change every year; new frameworks, new methods, new technologies will appear, and your client will want them. So, if you forgive my use of this phrase, is WTF a point?

I continue to tell my designer that the application will be redesigned in a few years, in any case, it makes no sense to try to remove the lighting from his @ss, because it simply will not be there. There is no such thing as a perfect app.

, , , . . BTW 7 . , , Facebook 5 , , "", ​​ . . ? , , . ?

+3
9

" - ".

- , , . - : , , ( , ); -n- , , / . / ( ), .

, 3-5 , . , , , , 5 , ( ) COM/VB/MS-Access/ , , . ; , / .

+4

. , , , , - , ..

, , .

+9

, , 10+ . , ​​ . , , , , .

+5

- , , . , "" "" , , . , , , .

, , , , . , , y2k. 70 , 30 , - 4 . , ...

+4

, ​​ , , , .

, , - , , , ..

, , . ​​ , , , , .

+3

. , ( ) 18 . - -, , . .

, , - , , , , , . , .

+3

() . , , UI .

, , .

. , , , 50 , , .

+3

, , .Net Rocks, :

, , * / . , , , , .

* , - , , .

+3

Well, I think that the ideal design is completely orthogonal, but you just have to admit that it rarely works the way you expect. If you've never read Pragmatic Programmer, he talks a lot about the future verification of your code.

+2
source

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1758753/


All Articles