1. Less is more
   Seems we all agree reuse is fiction. Reuse bloats the code and increases the chance for implementation and production errors. Don’t solve for an undefined problem - you cannot.
   Presentation correlation: If the business presentation were to address a different issue than for what it was created the presentation would confuse the audience.

2. Consumers create
   As defined disposable software requires domain expertise. Focus on the problem to solve than being a tools expert. Most hardware products are all disposable and in some cases the factory that creates the specific hardware is also disposable. Here lies the rub; most consumers of the ’software’ are still not able to create their own applicatons.
   Presentation correlation: If I as the presenter need to deliver a board meeting, I would create my own presentation; not my assistant; not the IT guy. In fact what I lack in bling is made up for in focused content.

3. Half-life matters ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halflife )
   Knowing how long your application lasts determines how much effort you invest and I submit this defines disposability. Know that production support, network performance and interoperability as is lifetime usage are part of the specific requirements. But don’t code for more than you know.
   Presentation correlation: My presentations, created with PowerPoint, have a halflife of 7 days after which the information is out of date; the problem has been solved. However Microsoft PowerPoint is not at the same level of disposability as the presentation created with PP. That means software (C#) does not create disposability but specific application factories (PowerPoint) create disposable products (mypresentation.ppt).

   • did we not try and get here with 4GLs ;-)

4. One size does not fit all
   What is being said about disposable applications is solve a specific problem and not all applications are solved in the sameway. The lifetime of the application may require different tools and different approaches. Ruby on Rails solves a specific class of problem and that is what makes RoR such a powerful factory. (DSL’s extend this metaphor)
   Presentation correlation: At some point I have to put aside PowerPoint and decided that a short video clip (also disposable) is the better presentation to get re-elected.

5. Use common sense
   In the business world we constantly make value based decisions as to effort and result. As long as you know the lifetime value of your product you can match the implementation and maintenance effort appropriately.
   Presentation correlation: This is where I say maybe a verbal conversation or a blog entry is best and I throw away Microsoft PowerPoint and get back to doing real work, like walking my dog ;-)

“While I firmly believe like you in disposable software, I think there is something wrong with your first argument (presentation vs. software). It’s the old ‘teach a man to fish’ story: your presentation is not about giving them a one-time fish, it’s about teaching them how to fish (with examples for their lake, as it were :). “

This is true, my example is all about ‘teach them how to fish’. I chose that example simply because it was first hand and my most recent experience, so I talked about it in order to lend more credibility to my thesis.

However, I can also cite many examples where the PowerPoint presentation was merely a fish to be devoured by the audience, not a lecture on how to fish. In that respect, such presentations are not that much different from what a business application can deliver to its consumers.

Using a run of the mill application is not going to make anyone smarter, that’s for sure, but the same holds true for consuming a run of the mill business presentation.

“Regardless of the perception at a corporate level, most software is disposable.”

Thanks for this clarification, Douglas. You are, of course, right, and now I see that I should’ve titled my blurb “Intentionally Disposable Software”. Because that’s what I was driving at.