| I quite like legacy projects because i think they've already proved their worth in the marketplace. (RA) |
| I general, I think that rewriting the wrong approach nearly every single time. (RA) |
| Things are so impermanent. The only things you can trust are in the source code and what's in the revision history of that source code. |
| We have the "what" but we don't have the "why". (OD) |
| As you do this for longer, I think you start picking up on what you wish you'd written in the past. (RA) |
| I think nearly everything related to software development that really matters is invariably about communication. (RA) |
| Nearly everything that results in good quality software is because good communication works. (RA) |
| Ubiquitous language is using the same language the specialists are using. (RA) |
| An awful lot about DDD is trying to get the communication right. (RA) |
| If you pretend it's not happening, it doesn't mean it's not happening - just that you're ignoring the problem. (RA) |
| It's cheaper to fix things earlier in the process. (RA) |
| User groups are such a good community resource. We get to try thing (talks) out. (RA) |
| A conference gives you a focused block of time to learn something. (RA) |
| I think the tenets of DDD can are important regardless (of the size of the project). (RA) |
| We can refactor our way out, but now the overall time is longer. (RA) |
| Time spent upfront is tangible effect on the time spent later. (RA) |
| The biggest one [benefit of DDD] is that you end up with a project that's fit for purpose. |
| You're way more likely to deliver a project that does what the customer needs if you have listened and understood what they said. (RA) |
| It's in the customer's best interest for you to get it right the first time. (OD) |
| You have to be proactive. It doesn't happen by default. (RA) |
