Re: First Avoid Coding
From: Isaac Gouy (igouy_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/11/04
- Next message: H. S. Lahman: "Re: In which application areas is the most interesting work?"
- Previous message: Universe: "Re: Second Dimension of Object Oriented Modelling"
- In reply to: Ron Jeffries: "Re: First Avoid Coding"
- Next in thread: Phlip: "Re: First Avoid Coding"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 11 Mar 2004 10:07:48 -0800
Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@REMOVEacm.org> wrote in message news:<5a2t40ph3hrg3naaroacob0h296ptt15a5@4ax.com>...
> The only way I know to choose between alternatives is to listen to people who
> know about them, and then try the things that seem appealing.
Sometimes we measure the criteria that interest us, and choose the
alternative that scores best.
> If XP seems interesting to you, try some of it. If it doesn't seem
> interesting, don't. It is, and always will be, up to you.
Not so, some things will be mandated by others.
> >"As I get older and crankier, I find myself more and more exasperated
> >with the great inflexible sets of rules that many companies try to
> >pour into concrete and sanctify as methods. The idea that a single
> >method should govern even two different projects is highly suspect:
> >the differences between projects are much more important than the
> >similarities."
> >Tom DeMarco 1982 Controlling Software Projects
>
> Tom DeMarco likes XP and agile methods. Did you know that?
I did: http://www.systemsguild.com/GuildSite/TDM/June2002Computer.pdf
> And unless I'm mistaken, his paragraph above does not contradict mine above.
> He speaks of processes. I speak of techniques.
You aren't mistaken, that's why I quoted it.
If you speak of techniques there's a good chance I'll understand what
you say.
> >"A method without limitations, whose development steps are never
> >impossible to complete, whose stages diagnose and recognize no
> >difficulty, must be very bad indeed. Just think about it. A method
> >without limitations and difficulties is saying one of two things to
> >you. Either it's saying that all problems are easily solved. You know
> >that's not true. Or else it's saying that some problems are difficult,
> >but the method is not going to help you to recognize or overcome the
> >difficult bits when you meet them."
> >Michael Jackson 1995 Software Requirements & Specifications
> >
> >I forgot, XP isn't a method it's a ...spiritual practice?
> I take this as an indication that you are not seriously interested in
> learning about XP, or about discussing it professionally. Is that the case?
You could take it as an indication that expressions like "doing the
practices reveals what XP is" obfuscate more than they clarify.
Talk of techniques, talk of their limitations and difficulties and
their range of applicability.
> >> One can analyze the water all one wants. The proof is in the swimming.
> >The water doesn't matter to Lynne Cox
> Yes. That's why I keep saying you should try it. (specific you.)
Swimming is a test of the swimmer not the water (Lynne Cox talent
overcomes).
Given that 'there is no useful meaning to phrases like "doing XP"'
it's not obvious how we could say if I had tried XP or not.
OTOH I was working with a weekly development cycle
(customer-requirement to live system) 15 years ago. (We can probably
tick the experience with agile methods checkbox.)
- Next message: H. S. Lahman: "Re: In which application areas is the most interesting work?"
- Previous message: Universe: "Re: Second Dimension of Object Oriented Modelling"
- In reply to: Ron Jeffries: "Re: First Avoid Coding"
- Next in thread: Phlip: "Re: First Avoid Coding"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|