mpowell_esq
Member
If you follow the ADM route, you KNOW where the bugs will be and where your code falls down.
This limits the time wasted trying to locate where the actual error is situated. By following the framework of the ADM & ADM 2, the process is shortened. You are not limited to a single developer either, ALL progress people will have their own experiences of little 'features' that arise and know how to cure them. Which is why following the ADM is a good method to development. Everybody is then 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. Allowing external folk to be introduced more easily. It would be possible then to out source to tin-su-do or wherever else the labour is more economical.
OpenEdge works because it 'has the EDGE over competitors to OPEN solutions'
This limits the time wasted trying to locate where the actual error is situated. By following the framework of the ADM & ADM 2, the process is shortened. You are not limited to a single developer either, ALL progress people will have their own experiences of little 'features' that arise and know how to cure them. Which is why following the ADM is a good method to development. Everybody is then 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. Allowing external folk to be introduced more easily. It would be possible then to out source to tin-su-do or wherever else the labour is more economical.
OpenEdge works because it 'has the EDGE over competitors to OPEN solutions'