John Reynolds has posted "Kitchens and Fast Food Factories," a blog describing how some programmers prefer the "dream kitchen," where emphasis is on variety and capability, rather than "fast food," which encourages re-use of standard components to create functional, rather than flashy, software.

I'd suggest that, regardless of requirements, most of us can get a good idea of what role the software will play in the business. If the software is destined to play a major role in an important business process (as most software is), then architect your software (as much as possible) to function as components within a larger process (that is likely to change). Back to the Fast Food Factory... there are many specialized components, but the interfaces are designed for movement. Each component accepts output from a previous component, and passes results on to a later component. Components themselves may be black boxes, but the connections between the components are highly visible. Traffic between components can be monitored, and if necessary rerouted should a change in process be necessary. By all means, build the best stove, refrigerator and sink that you can... but build them with the assembly line in mind and your customers will probably end up a lot more satisfied.

This kind of design is perfect for SOA, of course, but it shouldn't be a new idea: reusable components should be very common, but really aren't. (Perhaps they are, and they're just hard to find. Feel free to point them out!) Of course, one wonders what the equivalent of "mystery meat" is, for programming... .Net?

The only useful question posed in this blog is: So where am I going with this analogy? To which the answer is absoutely no-where... Big Mac and Fries anyone ?

The only useful question posed in this blog is:

So where am I going with this analogy?

To which the answer is absoutely no-where...

Big Mac and Fries anyone ?

I prefer Whoppers from BK and fries from McD.

What? No fries from McDonald's? I thought you said I could have it my way!

The only useful question posed in this blog is: So where am I going with this analogy? To which the answer is absoutely no-where... Big Mac and Fries anyone ?

I prefer Whoppers from BK and fries from McD.

BK and McBarf are no comparison to In and Out. You know the fries weren't frozen and were whole potatoes just minutes before they were fried. If I never have to eat another meal at McBarf, life would be ideal :) unfortunately, the kids can't resist those stupid happy meals. peter

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/14/Worldandnation/Number_of__extremely_.shtml Nothing more to say

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/14/Worldandnation/Number_of__extremely_.shtml

Nothing more to say

I think that's more due to people spending their lives infront of computers and televisions instead of actually moving than it is to the nature of the food. I personally prefer burgers from the neighborhood bar.

BK and McBarf are no comparison to In and Out.

Didn't realize that was a choice. Think it might be quite a drive for me. :) I'd rather eat my own. I make a mean burger.

The only useful question posed in this blog is:

So where am I going with this analogy?

To which the answer is absoutely no-where...

Big Mac and Fries anyone ?

I prefer Whoppers from BK and fries from McD.

You too! What's the deal with BK's fries?

Some days I feel like the only person in the world who prefers Burger King fries over McDonald's.... Mickey-D's are just so soggy/greasy, it kills me -- BK's fries are best fresh, but they seem to age better under the hot lamp. I would comment on the article, but I thought it was tripe. I don't think it's a good analogy, and I don't find his interpretation useful.