Re: XP and Pair Programming
- From: Laurent Bossavit <laurent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 19:19:16 +0200
> Sorry, but I tire of this exercise in pedantry.
No, don't be sorry. It's much less effort to use words if you don't take
responsibility for the meaning you give them. (I'm puzzled. I normally
enjoy your essays on topics such as OOA/D, in which you're not afraid to
develop fine points at some length.)
It might help if I add that XP has nothing to do with this discussion.
Kent Beck is often holding forth about "accountability" these days, and
I can't fathom what he means by it either.
As an industry, we seem to be stuck at the stage where "accountability"
means "the b*****ds had better behave or we'll dock their pay / have
them work overtime / whatever".
Your own view comes across as one grade more sophisticated than that,
but still fairly close to F.W. Taylor: "Someone smart will define the
process and we'll put in metrics and controls to make sure that the not-
so-smart developers toe the line of appropriate behaviour." Perhaps that
works, in some contexts. Taylor's ideas did work.
That leaves room for processes which assume software development efforts
staffed with smart people confronting problems that are resistant to
"One Best Way" analysis, and a view of accountability appropriate for
- Prev by Date: Re: OO language for Ubiquitous computing
- Next by Date: OOA - assign responsibilities?
- Previous by thread: Re: XP and Pair Programming
- Next by thread: Re: XP and Pair Programming