Re: Fwd: Re: [Gnumed-devel] GNUmed brochures (was When will GNUmed be ready)

[Richard Terry]

On Saturday 17 December 2005 18:11, Richard Hosking wrote:
> The Gnumed project development cycle could be likened to one of the
> modern "agile" software development methodologies
> A "prototype" is developed (which may or may not be a working program -
> it could be a paper protoype) which is then evaluated and changes
> proposed to improve the current design, and the cycle begins again.
> This stuff is not just theoretical - it is widely used by commercial
> software developers to speed the development cycle.
Wrong.

This is not what has happened in gnuMed. There has never been an agreement on 
a conceptual prototype, with an agreement as to how it would look and 
function at a single point in time.

 It has arison ad-hoc, as those capable of the coding have put it together. 
Some of my original medical records program was used as some of the ideas, 
but not implemented in the functional way they were intended, hence the 
result is less than functional, and worse than somthing much simpler. 

There has been no iterative cycle.

Regards

Richard Terry

> I dont have the skills of many in the forum, though they are slowly
> improving.
> I find the code in Gnumed almost totally impenetrable (which doesnt mean
> it is badly constructed - it is just me) , and I doubt I could add much
> of value to the coding without fairly intensive direction.


> I would not see Gnumed as a viable alternative in Australia in it's
> current form - it needs accounting, a front desk module and prescribing.
> As it is, it is of academic interest only to Australian Drs. It appears
> that the work required to achieve these other components may be
> insurmountable.
>
> It will be difficult to produce the functionality of alternatives, so it
> will have to offer something new to compete - I see cost and freedom
> from Windows with all it's licensing issues as the big drawcards.
> A proper robust database design and internet/network scalability are
> other (major!) pluses, but most Drs would not necessarily see this as a
> great advantage.
>
> I think perhaps coding should stop and the "evaluation" part of the
> cycle should be looked at - what do we (and other users) want? Does the
> current software achieve this? If not, what are the priorities and who
> will do the work?
> By "management" of the project I would think we mean tracking this
> process, and to certain extent directing (and assisting if necessary)
> those interested to do certain tasks in a coordinated way
>
> Richard
>
> Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
> >On Friday 16 December 2005 10:41, Hilmar Berger wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:27:08 +0100
> >>
> >>Sebastian Hilbert <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>Without a clear vision, your specs will be wrong (written down or not),
> >>>>which will finally result in useless code.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnumed-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel