Apt Use of Dual Hierarchies & RMartin's Approach
From: Universe (universe_at_tAkEcovadOuT.net)
Date: 02/17/04
- Next message: Alan Gauld: "Re: Dijkstra gets it wrong [was: Re: D gets it right]"
- Previous message: Universe: "Re: Dijkstra gets it wrong [was: Re: D gets it right]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:51:10 -0500
I recommend those interested read RMartin's piece on Dual Hierarchies - it's
only a handful of pages in a .pdf - and then post your opinion.
I have a number of objections to definitions, characterizations and
solutions RCM offers in that material.
What do you think?
Elliott
-- XP TDD tests are created from some degree of pre-coding analysis. (Though XP does not mandate doing minimally *overall* analysis of the use case currently being coded, much less minimally *overall* investigation of at least all key project use cases, singly then as a group [project scope]). However, Dijkstra recommends that system design be *driven* (driven: key design elements overall are "steered" in one direction or another) by core abstraction decomposition, the interrelationships of core abstractions, tackling highest risks at the outset, etc. Given that Dijkstra's approach here is not central to XP/Alliance TDD, there is a much greater chance of the averse as opposed to the reverse occurring. !;- >
- Next message: Alan Gauld: "Re: Dijkstra gets it wrong [was: Re: D gets it right]"
- Previous message: Universe: "Re: Dijkstra gets it wrong [was: Re: D gets it right]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|