We all know about serial thinking, where steps are taken in turn and lead to a particular conclusion. Dynamic thinking, on the other hand, is where one idea leads to a series of other possibilities, and each of those leading to a series of others. The end result can only be sensed, and conclusions formed based on a sampling of the outcome. An analogy might be a guided missile that is not pre-programmed for a particular target, but rather relies on sensors to correct itself in order to reach its objective.

It is easy to dismiss dynamic programming, as practiced by dynamanx, as just another buzzword. Over the last few years a steady stream of "magic bullets" have appeared on the I.T. scene; component-based development, open-source programming and object oriented computer languages such as Java and now C#. Dynamic or "agile" programming, and its subsets such as extreme programming and refactoring, are methodologies that deliberately take a different approach to recent development fads, focusing on re-engineering that leads to further cost cutting and productivity.

At dynamanx we believe in:

• empowering individual and collaborative programmers rather than constraining them with formal techniques and procedures.
• interacting with our clients rather than rigidly working to a specification.
• rapidly adapting to changes to requirements as they arise as opposed to implementing an out of date plan on time.

Dynamanx's approach is primarily a reaction against the practices of the last few years, practices that, from the point of view of developers, have failed due to imposing overly rigid controls on programmers, with little or no consideration to real-world programming issues. These practices invariably led to inferior applications that both clients and programmers felt dispassionate about despite their adherence to the original specification.

Today's programming practices present real hurdles to reaching the required standard for modern software development. Re-usability for example typically relies on the newest Java or C# code that does not address the object-relational mismatches with the back-end database, while formal procedures introduce further complexity and consequently more time without dealing with the task at hand.

By contrast, dynamanx's approach:

• emphasises rapid, regular upgrades.
• allows developers to cross organisational and database boundaries.
• is not bound by a single platform such as J2EE or .net.
• recognises the importance of database as a bottleneck to refactoring.

If you are considering an I.T. solutions provider to develop your desktop or internet application you should note this definition from the third edition of the New Hacker's dictionary available online:

creationism n.
The (false) belief that large, innovative software designs can be completely specified in advance and then painlessly magicked out of the void by the normal efforts of a team of normally talented programmers. In fact, experience has shown repeatedly that good designs arise only from evolutionary, exploratory interaction between one (or at most a small handful of) exceptionally able designer(s) and an active user population --- and that the first try at a big new idea is always wrong. Unfortunately, because these truths don't fit the planning models beloved of management, they are generally ignored.

If you are interested in how our approach addresses this fallacy and how we can help your organisation please contact us now.