Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book

Expand Messages
  • Gene Volovich
    I m not so sure about that - I think OO, and I do mean an OO way of thinking about the problem domain, IS becoming standard because it is a natural way to
    Message 1 of 28 , Oct 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm not so sure about that - I think OO, and I do mean an OO way of
      thinking about the problem domain, IS becoming standard because it is a
      natural way to think about the domain when it comes to (especially
      large) business and enterprise systems, the majority of software
      projects these days. If in all the schools and on the job training
      people are taught to think in terms of objects, I don't see why they
      wouldn't adopt that way of thinking. It's true that you see a lot of
      procedural code written in OO languages, but I think for larger
      projects, and especially using DDD, it is so natural to adopt an OO
      view of the domain that people will do so, and it won't take a genius
      to do it.

      Gene


      On Oct 1, 2004, at 1:22 AM, Lenny Primak wrote:

      > I agree with that first sentence wholeheartedly.
      > Few people know what polymorphism truly is, let alone use and
      > develop a proper object model.  OO is certainly not mainstream,
      > and will not be in at least 100 years, if ever.
      >
      > On Sep 30, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Jim Espaillat wrote:
      >
      > > I disagree that OO is mainstream.  Certainly OO LANGUAGES are
      > > mainstream, but as we all know, using an OO language does not
      > > automatically cause you to create OO code.  Ask the typical
      > > programmer if he knows OO, and he'll typically respond with
      > > something like, "Yes, I know OO, I work in Java", as if they were
      > > one and the same.  (This is not, of course, limited to just Java,
      > > but also C++, C#, PowerBuilder, and any other mainstream OO language
      > > you care to think of.)  Yet you look at what they're producing, and
      > > 9 times out of 10 it's procedural code wrapped inside a few objects.
      > >
      > > Unfortunately, I don't think OO will ever become mainstream.  I
      > > consider myself a pretty smart guy, and I didn't get it at first.
      > > Yes you need smarts, but you also need to have enough experience to
      > > recognize A) how the paradigm is different, and B) that it's a
      > > better one.
      > >
      > > I haven't seen any survey done on this (nor would it be accurate,
      > > since so many think they're doing OO when they're really not), but
      > > if I had to take an educated guess, I would say about 10 percent of
      > > developers actually understand OO.  Making things worse, in my
      > > experience I've always had to co-exist with other developers on a
      > > project, so that even if I wanted to build things the right way, it
      > > was often an accomplishment just to get them to not put business
      > > logic in the GUI, never mind having any sort of a true object model.
      > >
      > > Meanwhile design patterns, as we know them at least, are useless
      > > without an OO underpinning, so even if we concede that half the true
      > > OO developers know about patterns, that's still only 5 percent of
      > > the universe.  And I may be estimating high; as you point out, you
      > > only find 1 percent of developers suitable for hiring.
      > >
      > > I recently joined this group, partly to learn something, but also
      > > partly to not feel quite so alone in this effort.  I truly wish I
      > > didn't have to work in an enviromnent where I have to maintain
      > > programs that don't work well, are written horribly, and yet I'm
      > > constrained by managers who won't let me change something just
      > > because I don't like it ("if it ain't broke...", but how do you
      > > convince them it IS broken?).
      > >
      > > --
      > > Jim Espaillat
      > > Delphinus Consulting, Inc.
      > > www.delphinusinc.com
      > >
      > > PS. I'm not a .NET guy (PB actually), but I'll definitely take you
      > > up on the next talk.  One of the best parts about thinking at a
      > > sufficiently high level of abstraction is that the language becomes
      > > secondary.  Good thing, too; I've yet to see any good OO books come
      > > out with PB examples...
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com, "Damon Carr" <damon@a...> wrote:
      > >>
      > >> Gene,
      > >>
      > >> Your kind words are appreciated. It's the professionals like
      > > yourself that
      > >> will fix the problems we all face one programmer at a time, bottom
      > > up (where
      > >> I believe it has to happen).
      > >>
      > >> As a man who is 'fighting the good fight' it's nice to hear some
      > > positive
      > >> feedback (as it sounds like you are as well). The fact that we
      > > have to fight
      > >> to get accepted what is proven to work better is it is confounding
      > > (although
      > >> I think from 10 years in NYC I should know enough about the
      > > Psychology of
      > >> change, politics, etc. to see how it has been misapplied and
      > > misunderstood).
      > >>
      > >> Like someone said "all great men our misunderstood" perhaps It
      > > should also
      > >> be "all software engineering advancements are misunderstood (at
      > > least in
      > >> most of the east cost, Midwest and South for at 15 years or so,
      > > except in
      > >> Academia and the top 5% of the Software Organizations". I come from
      > >> California (Northern), where the exposure to innovation rate is
      > > more like
      > >> 50% and we would never stand for the standards I see every day in
      > > Financial
      > >> Services in NYC (that is the only industry I can speak with
      > > authority on, as
      > >> that is where I have led on the 'large projects' over $1,000,000)
      > > although
      > >> my other experiences have verified my experiences in other
      > > industries in
      > >> NYC). Since the day I got here I was shocked. Although my current
      > > position
      > >> is a welcome change I must say. But statistically it is in the 3rd
      > > standard
      > >> deviation.
      > >>
      > >> I think that is how long it took Object-Oriented to
      > > be 'mainstream' (15
      > >> years?) via C++ and Smalltalk, no? Design Patterns is running on
      > > what, 13
      > >> years(?) and it is not there. Do you all think 15 years is the
      > > time frame?
      > >> 20? I do not mean the leading team of gurus we have in this group,
      > > but when
      > >> will your average mid-level programmer  schlepping into the office
      > > every day
      > >> start finding refactorings into the Adapter pattern (unifying 20
      > >> interfaces), and doing Agile modeling on a whiteboard with
      > > colleagues,
      > >> perhaps on a refactoring of old C++ or even C code that is being
      > > moved to C#
      > >> (my personal favorite language as it is an international standard.
      > > I just
      > >> read an article about a 15 million line C# app running on Linux.
      > > Give it 18
      > >> months and C# and the FCL will be on every OS (but predictions are
      > > always
      > >> dangerous (grin)).
      > >>
      > >> This 15 year rule seems not to hold for technologies that are
      > > tangible and
      > >> packaged, as they are rapidly accepted and are evolving
      > > constantly, but it
      > >> seems to hold for practices like pair programming, TDD, and
      > > technical design
      > >> and refactoring using Patterns. We could call it the Doubt,
      > > Uncertainty,
      > >> Misunderstanding and Botched-Attempt (DUMB) Principal. <grin>.. My
      > >> presentation tomorrow (today if you read this Thursday).. I can't
      > > wait.
      > >>
      > >> For my presentation, I just happen to be covering a topic that is
      > > totally
      > >> different then what my book is about and this group: Advanced
      > > Multithreading
      > >> in C#. So many of you might want to skip this one and come to my
      > > next one
      > >> which is tentatively: 'Best Software Engineering Practices in .NET
      > >> Development: How to be Agile, Refactor Code to Design Patterns and
      > >> Everything In-between' which is based on a paper I am writing for
      > > various
      > >> publications and is nothing short of a warning shot over the bow.
      > > My book is
      > >> the full scale invasion. Give it 15 years and perhaps it will sell
      > > <grin>.
      > >> However you are all incredibly welcome to not only come, but to
      > > join me for
      > >> the dinner I have planned afterwards.
      > >>
      > >> Kind Regards,
      > >> Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO
      > >> agilefactor
      > >> www.agilefactor.com
      > >>
      > >> P.S. Anyone know a good CEO so I can just be 'Chief Technologist'?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >
      > ADVERTISEMENT
      > <image.tiff>
      > <image.tiff>
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > • To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
      >  
      > • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >  
      > • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      > Service.
      >
      >
    • Sathyanarayanan Srinivasan
      My take is that people still don t fully understand how to do OO using OO languages. I would probably think that the major reason for this is the rush by
      Message 2 of 28 , Oct 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        My take is that people still don't fully understand how to do OO using OO
        languages. I would probably think that the major reason for this is the rush
        by companies to market their product, thereby reducing the timeline to a
        minimum. They want programs to be written in the latest technologies because
        it's cool (i.e., more marketable), but don't bother to educate or give time
        to developers to educate themselves. As a result, the developers, in their
        hurry to meet their deadlines, fall back to what they already know -
        procedural programming.

        I agree with Gene in that this is a grass-roots effort. You cannot expect
        things to change all of a sudden. But as more and more colleges teach OO in
        Software courses and as more and more professionals who understand and work
        with people who don't, I believe the conversion will take place. It will
        definitely be painful (ask any guy who converted a legacy app to a new app),
        but it will happen nevertheless.

        I recently created a presentation based on our discussions in the group on
        principles. A friend of mine gave the presentation to his group (of around
        40-50), who are involved in a large enterprise (J2EE) software. We made
        these observations.

        1. Most of the attendees were software professionals with at least 3 years
        of experience.
        2. Most of them knew Java or closely related OO language.
        3. Almost none of them had heard of the 5 principles explained in Martin's
        book.
        4. Almost all of them were interested and enthusiastic at the end on hearing
        the principles, which was evident from insightful questions that they asked
        at the end. In fact, one person pointed out a place in their existing
        design, which potentially violated LSP!

        From this, I believe that hope is definitely there.


        "It is easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of computers by the
        sense of accomplishment you get from getting them to run at all."

        - Douglas Adams
        http://www.cssathya.com




        ----Original Message Follows----
        From: Gene Volovich <gene@...>
        Reply-To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
        To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
        Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:32:38 -0400

        I'm not so sure about that - I think OO, and I do mean an OO way of
        thinking about the problem domain, IS becoming standard because it is a
        natural way to think about the domain when it comes to (especially
        large) business and enterprise systems, the majority of software
        projects these days. If in all the schools and on the job training
        people are taught to think in terms of objects, I don't see why they
        wouldn't adopt that way of thinking. It's true that you see a lot of
        procedural code written in OO languages, but I think for larger
        projects, and especially using DDD, it is so natural to adopt an OO
        view of the domain that people will do so, and it won't take a genius
        to do it.

        Gene


        On Oct 1, 2004, at 1:22 AM, Lenny Primak wrote:

        > I agree with that first sentence wholeheartedly.
        > Few people know what polymorphism truly is, let alone use and
        > develop a proper object model. OO is certainly not mainstream,
        > and will not be in at least 100 years, if ever.
        >
        > On Sep 30, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Jim Espaillat wrote:
        >
        > > I disagree that OO is mainstream. Certainly OO LANGUAGES are
        > > mainstream, but as we all know, using an OO language does not
        > > automatically cause you to create OO code. Ask the typical
        > > programmer if he knows OO, and he'll typically respond with
        > > something like, "Yes, I know OO, I work in Java", as if they were
        > > one and the same. (This is not, of course, limited to just Java,
        > > but also C++, C#, PowerBuilder, and any other mainstream OO language
        > > you care to think of.) Yet you look at what they're producing, and
        > > 9 times out of 10 it's procedural code wrapped inside a few objects.
        > >
        > > Unfortunately, I don't think OO will ever become mainstream. I
        > > consider myself a pretty smart guy, and I didn't get it at first.
        > > Yes you need smarts, but you also need to have enough experience to
        > > recognize A) how the paradigm is different, and B) that it's a
        > > better one.
        > >
        > > I haven't seen any survey done on this (nor would it be accurate,
        > > since so many think they're doing OO when they're really not), but
        > > if I had to take an educated guess, I would say about 10 percent of
        > > developers actually understand OO. Making things worse, in my
        > > experience I've always had to co-exist with other developers on a
        > > project, so that even if I wanted to build things the right way, it
        > > was often an accomplishment just to get them to not put business
        > > logic in the GUI, never mind having any sort of a true object model.
        > >
        > > Meanwhile design patterns, as we know them at least, are useless
        > > without an OO underpinning, so even if we concede that half the true
        > > OO developers know about patterns, that's still only 5 percent of
        > > the universe. And I may be estimating high; as you point out, you
        > > only find 1 percent of developers suitable for hiring.
        > >
        > > I recently joined this group, partly to learn something, but also
        > > partly to not feel quite so alone in this effort. I truly wish I
        > > didn't have to work in an enviromnent where I have to maintain
        > > programs that don't work well, are written horribly, and yet I'm
        > > constrained by managers who won't let me change something just
        > > because I don't like it ("if it ain't broke...", but how do you
        > > convince them it IS broken?).
        > >
        > > --
        > > Jim Espaillat
        > > Delphinus Consulting, Inc.
        > > www.delphinusinc.com
        > >
        > > PS. I'm not a .NET guy (PB actually), but I'll definitely take you
        > > up on the next talk. One of the best parts about thinking at a
        > > sufficiently high level of abstraction is that the language becomes
        > > secondary. Good thing, too; I've yet to see any good OO books come
        > > out with PB examples...
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com, "Damon Carr" <damon@a...> wrote:
        > >>
        > >> Gene,
        > >>
        > >> Your kind words are appreciated. It's the professionals like
        > > yourself that
        > >> will fix the problems we all face one programmer at a time, bottom
        > > up (where
        > >> I believe it has to happen).
        > >>
        > >> As a man who is 'fighting the good fight' it's nice to hear some
        > > positive
        > >> feedback (as it sounds like you are as well). The fact that we
        > > have to fight
        > >> to get accepted what is proven to work better is it is confounding
        > > (although
        > >> I think from 10 years in NYC I should know enough about the
        > > Psychology of
        > >> change, politics, etc. to see how it has been misapplied and
        > > misunderstood).
        > >>
        > >> Like someone said "all great men our misunderstood" perhaps It
        > > should also
        > >> be "all software engineering advancements are misunderstood (at
        > > least in
        > >> most of the east cost, Midwest and South for at 15 years or so,
        > > except in
        > >> Academia and the top 5% of the Software Organizations". I come from
        > >> California (Northern), where the exposure to innovation rate is
        > > more like
        > >> 50% and we would never stand for the standards I see every day in
        > > Financial
        > >> Services in NYC (that is the only industry I can speak with
        > > authority on, as
        > >> that is where I have led on the 'large projects' over $1,000,000)
        > > although
        > >> my other experiences have verified my experiences in other
        > > industries in
        > >> NYC). Since the day I got here I was shocked. Although my current
        > > position
        > >> is a welcome change I must say. But statistically it is in the 3rd
        > > standard
        > >> deviation.
        > >>
        > >> I think that is how long it took Object-Oriented to
        > > be 'mainstream' (15
        > >> years?) via C++ and Smalltalk, no? Design Patterns is running on
        > > what, 13
        > >> years(?) and it is not there. Do you all think 15 years is the
        > > time frame?
        > >> 20? I do not mean the leading team of gurus we have in this group,
        > > but when
        > >> will your average mid-level programmer schlepping into the office
        > > every day
        > >> start finding refactorings into the Adapter pattern (unifying 20
        > >> interfaces), and doing Agile modeling on a whiteboard with
        > > colleagues,
        > >> perhaps on a refactoring of old C++ or even C code that is being
        > > moved to C#
        > >> (my personal favorite language as it is an international standard.
        > > I just
        > >> read an article about a 15 million line C# app running on Linux.
        > > Give it 18
        > >> months and C# and the FCL will be on every OS (but predictions are
        > > always
        > >> dangerous (grin)).
        > >>
        > >> This 15 year rule seems not to hold for technologies that are
        > > tangible and
        > >> packaged, as they are rapidly accepted and are evolving
        > > constantly, but it
        > >> seems to hold for practices like pair programming, TDD, and
        > > technical design
        > >> and refactoring using Patterns. We could call it the Doubt,
        > > Uncertainty,
        > >> Misunderstanding and Botched-Attempt (DUMB) Principal. <grin>.. My
        > >> presentation tomorrow (today if you read this Thursday).. I can't
        > > wait.
        > >>
        > >> For my presentation, I just happen to be covering a topic that is
        > > totally
        > >> different then what my book is about and this group: Advanced
        > > Multithreading
        > >> in C#. So many of you might want to skip this one and come to my
        > > next one
        > >> which is tentatively: 'Best Software Engineering Practices in .NET
        > >> Development: How to be Agile, Refactor Code to Design Patterns and
        > >> Everything In-between' which is based on a paper I am writing for
        > > various
        > >> publications and is nothing short of a warning shot over the bow.
        > > My book is
        > >> the full scale invasion. Give it 15 years and perhaps it will sell
        > > <grin>.
        > >> However you are all incredibly welcome to not only come, but to
        > > join me for
        > >> the dinner I have planned afterwards.
        > >>
        > >> Kind Regards,
        > >> Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO
        > >> agilefactor
        > >> www.agilefactor.com
        > >>
        > >> P.S. Anyone know a good CEO so I can just be 'Chief Technologist'?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        > > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >
        > ADVERTISEMENT
        > <image.tiff>
        > <image.tiff>
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > � To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
        >
        > � To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > � Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        > Service.
        >
        >



        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...

        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Lenny Primak
        Well, I agree that we do have a moral responsibility to open peoples eyes to OO, but the fact is that most of the people who consider themselves
        Message 3 of 28 , Oct 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, I agree that we do have a moral responsibility to "open peoples
          eyes"
          to OO, but the fact is that most of the people who consider themselves
          "programmers"
          are not and will never be, no matter what we do. It's like trying to
          make a ballerina
          out of somebody that's 200lbs. Just wont happen. We don't have to
          shut down colleges,
          but the problem is that they take everybody, partly to be able to make
          more money.
          There is much more attrition, and it's a lot harder to make it as a
          doctor or a lawyer
          than a computer programmer. That's why we get all the chaff in the
          first place.

          On Oct 1, 2004, at 1:52 AM, Damon Carr wrote:

          >
          > If that is true then we might as well shut down the colleges and all
          > become
          > luddites. COME ON PEOPLE. It is YOUR JOB to help solve this problem as
          > leaders in this industry. Don't you feel SOME moral responsibility or
          > is
          > that my cross to bear?
          >
          > Kind Regards,
          > Damon Wilder Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO
          > .NET SIG Leader - New York Software Industry Association (NYSIA
          > www.nysia.org)
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > URGENT SMS Text Messages can be sent to: 9175174010@...
          >
          >
          > STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
          >
          > The format and content of this material and its associated intellectual
          > property rights are the exclusive property of agilefactor,
          > Incorporated. All
          > rights are reserved. No part of this material, nor summaries or
          > derivative
          > works, may be used in any way without the prior written authorization
          > of
          > agilefactor, Incorporated.
          >
          > This electronic message may contain privileged or confidential
          > information.
          > If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it
          > from
          > your system and advise the sender. If this message was misdirected,
          > agilefactor does not waive any confidentiality or privilege.
          > agilefactor
          > retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its
          > network.
          >
          > Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on
          > agilefactor
          > until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed
          > to be
          > secure.
          >
          > Copyright 2004 by agilefactor, Incorporated.
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Lenny Primak [mailto:lprimak@...]
          > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:23 AM
          > To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
          >
          > I agree with that first sentence wholeheartedly.
          > Few people know what polymorphism truly is, let alone use and develop a
          > proper object model. OO is certainly not mainstream, and will not be
          > in at
          > least 100 years, if ever.
          >
          > On Sep 30, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Jim Espaillat wrote:
          >
          >> I disagree that OO is mainstream. Certainly OO LANGUAGES are
          >> mainstream, but as we all know, using an OO language does not
          >> automatically cause you to create OO code. Ask the typical programmer
          >> if he knows OO, and he'll typically respond with something like, "Yes,
          >> I know OO, I work in Java", as if they were one and the same. (This
          >> is not, of course, limited to just Java, but also C++, C#,
          >> PowerBuilder, and any other mainstream OO language you care to think
          >> of.) Yet you look at what they're producing, and
          >> 9 times out of 10 it's procedural code wrapped inside a few objects.
          >>
          >> Unfortunately, I don't think OO will ever become mainstream. I
          >> consider myself a pretty smart guy, and I didn't get it at first.
          >> Yes you need smarts, but you also need to have enough experience to
          >> recognize A) how the paradigm is different, and B) that it's a better
          >> one.
          >>
          >> I haven't seen any survey done on this (nor would it be accurate,
          >> since so many think they're doing OO when they're really not), but if
          >> I had to take an educated guess, I would say about 10 percent of
          >> developers actually understand OO. Making things worse, in my
          >> experience I've always had to co-exist with other developers on a
          >> project, so that even if I wanted to build things the right way, it
          >> was often an accomplishment just to get them to not put business logic
          >> in the GUI, never mind having any sort of a true object model.
          >>
          >> Meanwhile design patterns, as we know them at least, are useless
          >> without an OO underpinning, so even if we concede that half the true
          >> OO developers know about patterns, that's still only 5 percent of the
          >> universe. And I may be estimating high; as you point out, you only
          >> find 1 percent of developers suitable for hiring.
          >>
          >> I recently joined this group, partly to learn something, but also
          >> partly to not feel quite so alone in this effort. I truly wish I
          >> didn't have to work in an enviromnent where I have to maintain
          >> programs that don't work well, are written horribly, and yet I'm
          >> constrained by managers who won't let me change something just because
          >> I don't like it ("if it ain't broke...", but how do you convince them
          >> it IS broken?).
          >>
          >> --
          >> Jim Espaillat
          >> Delphinus Consulting, Inc.
          >> www.delphinusinc.com
          >>
          >> PS. I'm not a .NET guy (PB actually), but I'll definitely take you up
          >> on the next talk. One of the best parts about thinking at a
          >> sufficiently high level of abstraction is that the language becomes
          >> secondary. Good thing, too; I've yet to see any good OO books come
          >> out with PB examples...
          >>
          >>
          >> --- In dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com, "Damon Carr" <damon@a...> wrote:
          >>>
          >>> Gene,
          >>>
          >>> Your kind words are appreciated. It's the professionals like
          >> yourself that
          >>> will fix the problems we all face one programmer at a time, bottom
          >> up (where
          >>> I believe it has to happen).
          >>>
          >>> As a man who is 'fighting the good fight' it's nice to hear some
          >> positive
          >>> feedback (as it sounds like you are as well). The fact that we
          >> have to fight
          >>> to get accepted what is proven to work better is it is confounding
          >> (although
          >>> I think from 10 years in NYC I should know enough about the
          >> Psychology of
          >>> change, politics, etc. to see how it has been misapplied and
          >> misunderstood).
          >>>
          >>> Like someone said "all great men our misunderstood" perhaps It
          >> should also
          >>> be "all software engineering advancements are misunderstood (at
          >> least in
          >>> most of the east cost, Midwest and South for at 15 years or so,
          >> except in
          >>> Academia and the top 5% of the Software Organizations". I come from
          >>> California (Northern), where the exposure to innovation rate is
          >> more like
          >>> 50% and we would never stand for the standards I see every day in
          >> Financial
          >>> Services in NYC (that is the only industry I can speak with
          >> authority on, as
          >>> that is where I have led on the 'large projects' over $1,000,000)
          >> although
          >>> my other experiences have verified my experiences in other
          >> industries in
          >>> NYC). Since the day I got here I was shocked. Although my current
          >> position
          >>> is a welcome change I must say. But statistically it is in the 3rd
          >> standard
          >>> deviation.
          >>>
          >>> I think that is how long it took Object-Oriented to
          >> be 'mainstream' (15
          >>> years?) via C++ and Smalltalk, no? Design Patterns is running on
          >> what, 13
          >>> years(?) and it is not there. Do you all think 15 years is the
          >> time frame?
          >>> 20? I do not mean the leading team of gurus we have in this group,
          >> but when
          >>> will your average mid-level programmer schlepping into the office
          >> every day
          >>> start finding refactorings into the Adapter pattern (unifying 20
          >>> interfaces), and doing Agile modeling on a whiteboard with
          >> colleagues,
          >>> perhaps on a refactoring of old C++ or even C code that is being
          >> moved to C#
          >>> (my personal favorite language as it is an international standard.
          >> I just
          >>> read an article about a 15 million line C# app running on Linux.
          >> Give it 18
          >>> months and C# and the FCL will be on every OS (but predictions are
          >> always
          >>> dangerous (grin)).
          >>>
          >>> This 15 year rule seems not to hold for technologies that are
          >> tangible and
          >>> packaged, as they are rapidly accepted and are evolving
          >> constantly, but it
          >>> seems to hold for practices like pair programming, TDD, and
          >> technical design
          >>> and refactoring using Patterns. We could call it the Doubt,
          >> Uncertainty,
          >>> Misunderstanding and Botched-Attempt (DUMB) Principal. <grin>.. My
          >>> presentation tomorrow (today if you read this Thursday).. I can't
          >> wait.
          >>>
          >>> For my presentation, I just happen to be covering a topic that is
          >> totally
          >>> different then what my book is about and this group: Advanced
          >> Multithreading
          >>> in C#. So many of you might want to skip this one and come to my
          >> next one
          >>> which is tentatively: 'Best Software Engineering Practices in .NET
          >>> Development: How to be Agile, Refactor Code to Design Patterns and
          >>> Everything In-between' which is based on a paper I am writing for
          >> various
          >>> publications and is nothing short of a warning shot over the bow.
          >> My book is
          >>> the full scale invasion. Give it 15 years and perhaps it will sell
          >> <grin>.
          >>> However you are all incredibly welcome to not only come, but to
          >> join me for
          >>> the dinner I have planned afterwards.
          >>>
          >>> Kind Regards,
          >>> Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO agilefactor
          >>> www.agilefactor.com
          >>>
          >>> P.S. Anyone know a good CEO so I can just be 'Chief Technologist'?
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          >> dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
          >>
          >> Yahoo! Groups Links
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > --------------------~--> Make
          > a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
          > Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
          > http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/AmOolB/TM
          > --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
          >
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Gene Volovich
          Maybe you want to have a required programmer s license ? I heard they were thinking about this. I wonder if Microsoft certification would be part of it :)
          Message 4 of 28 , Oct 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Maybe you want to have a required "programmer's license"? I heard they
            were thinking about this. I wonder if Microsoft certification would be
            part of it :)

            On Oct 1, 2004, at 10:14 AM, Lenny Primak wrote:

            > Well, I agree that we do have a moral responsibility to "open peoples
            > eyes"
            > to OO, but the fact is that most of the people who consider themselves
            > "programmers"
            > are not and will never be, no matter what we do.  It's like trying to
            > make a ballerina
            > out of somebody that's 200lbs.  Just wont happen.  We don't have to
            > shut down colleges,
            > but the problem is that they take everybody, partly to be able to make
            > more money.
            > There is much more attrition, and it's a lot harder to make it as a
            > doctor or a lawyer
            > than a computer programmer.  That's why we get all the chaff in the
            > first place.
            >
            > On Oct 1, 2004, at 1:52 AM, Damon Carr wrote:
            >
            > >
            > > If that is true then we might as well shut down the colleges and all
            > > become
            > > luddites. COME ON PEOPLE. It is YOUR JOB to help solve this problem
            > as
            > > leaders in this industry. Don't you feel SOME moral responsibility
            > or
            > > is
            > > that my cross to bear?
            > >
            > > Kind Regards,
            > > Damon Wilder Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO
            > > .NET SIG Leader - New York Software Industry Association (NYSIA
            > > www.nysia.org)
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > URGENT SMS Text Messages can be sent to: 9175174010@...
            > >
            > >
            > > STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
            > >
            > > The format and content of this material and its associated
            > intellectual
            > > property rights are the exclusive property of agilefactor,
            > > Incorporated. All
            > > rights are reserved. No part of this material, nor summaries or
            > > derivative
            > > works, may be used in any way without the prior written
            > authorization
            > > of
            > > agilefactor, Incorporated.
            > >
            > > This electronic message may contain privileged or confidential
            > > information.
            > > If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete
            > it
            > > from
            > > your system and advise the sender. If this message was misdirected,
            > > agilefactor does not waive any confidentiality or privilege.
            > > agilefactor
            > > retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its
            > > network.
            > >
            > > Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on
            > > agilefactor
            > > until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not
            > guaranteed
            > > to be
            > > secure.
            > >
            > > Copyright 2004 by agilefactor, Incorporated.
            > >
            > >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: Lenny Primak [mailto:lprimak@...]
            > > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:23 AM
            > > To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
            > >
            > > I agree with that first sentence wholeheartedly.
            > > Few people know what polymorphism truly is, let alone use and
            > develop a
            > > proper object model.  OO is certainly not mainstream, and will not
            > be
            > > in at
            > > least 100 years, if ever.
            > >
            > > On Sep 30, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Jim Espaillat wrote:
            > >
            > >> I disagree that OO is mainstream.  Certainly OO LANGUAGES are
            > >> mainstream, but as we all know, using an OO language does not
            > >> automatically cause you to create OO code.  Ask the typical
            > programmer
            > >> if he knows OO, and he'll typically respond with something like,
            > "Yes,
            > >> I know OO, I work in Java", as if they were one and the same. 
            > (This
            > >> is not, of course, limited to just Java, but also C++, C#,
            > >> PowerBuilder, and any other mainstream OO language you care to
            > think
            > >> of.)  Yet you look at what they're producing, and
            > >> 9 times out of 10 it's procedural code wrapped inside a few
            > objects.
            > >>
            > >> Unfortunately, I don't think OO will ever become mainstream.  I
            > >> consider myself a pretty smart guy, and I didn't get it at first.
            > >> Yes you need smarts, but you also need to have enough experience to
            > >> recognize A) how the paradigm is different, and B) that it's a
            > better
            > >> one.
            > >>
            > >> I haven't seen any survey done on this (nor would it be accurate,
            > >> since so many think they're doing OO when they're really not), but
            > if
            > >> I had to take an educated guess, I would say about 10 percent of
            > >> developers actually understand OO.  Making things worse, in my
            > >> experience I've always had to co-exist with other developers on a
            > >> project, so that even if I wanted to build things the right way, it
            > >> was often an accomplishment just to get them to not put business
            > logic
            > >> in the GUI, never mind having any sort of a true object model.
            > >>
            > >> Meanwhile design patterns, as we know them at least, are useless
            > >> without an OO underpinning, so even if we concede that half the
            > true
            > >> OO developers know about patterns, that's still only 5 percent of
            > the
            > >> universe.  And I may be estimating high; as you point out, you only
            > >> find 1 percent of developers suitable for hiring.
            > >>
            > >> I recently joined this group, partly to learn something, but also
            > >> partly to not feel quite so alone in this effort.  I truly wish I
            > >> didn't have to work in an enviromnent where I have to maintain
            > >> programs that don't work well, are written horribly, and yet I'm
            > >> constrained by managers who won't let me change something just
            > because
            > >> I don't like it ("if it ain't broke...", but how do you convince
            > them
            > >> it IS broken?).
            > >>
            > >> --
            > >> Jim Espaillat
            > >> Delphinus Consulting, Inc.
            > >> www.delphinusinc.com
            > >>
            > >> PS. I'm not a .NET guy (PB actually), but I'll definitely take you
            > up
            > >> on the next talk.  One of the best parts about thinking at a
            > >> sufficiently high level of abstraction is that the language becomes
            > >> secondary.  Good thing, too; I've yet to see any good OO books come
            > >> out with PB examples...
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> --- In dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com, "Damon Carr" <damon@a...> wrote:
            > >>>
            > >>> Gene,
            > >>>
            > >>> Your kind words are appreciated. It's the professionals like
            > >> yourself that
            > >>> will fix the problems we all face one programmer at a time, bottom
            > >> up (where
            > >>> I believe it has to happen).
            > >>>
            > >>> As a man who is 'fighting the good fight' it's nice to hear some
            > >> positive
            > >>> feedback (as it sounds like you are as well). The fact that we
            > >> have to fight
            > >>> to get accepted what is proven to work better is it is confounding
            > >> (although
            > >>> I think from 10 years in NYC I should know enough about the
            > >> Psychology of
            > >>> change, politics, etc. to see how it has been misapplied and
            > >> misunderstood).
            > >>>
            > >>> Like someone said "all great men our misunderstood" perhaps It
            > >> should also
            > >>> be "all software engineering advancements are misunderstood (at
            > >> least in
            > >>> most of the east cost, Midwest and South for at 15 years or so,
            > >> except in
            > >>> Academia and the top 5% of the Software Organizations". I come
            > from
            > >>> California (Northern), where the exposure to innovation rate is
            > >> more like
            > >>> 50% and we would never stand for the standards I see every day in
            > >> Financial
            > >>> Services in NYC (that is the only industry I can speak with
            > >> authority on, as
            > >>> that is where I have led on the 'large projects' over $1,000,000)
            > >> although
            > >>> my other experiences have verified my experiences in other
            > >> industries in
            > >>> NYC). Since the day I got here I was shocked. Although my current
            > >> position
            > >>> is a welcome change I must say. But statistically it is in the 3rd
            > >> standard
            > >>> deviation.
            > >>>
            > >>> I think that is how long it took Object-Oriented to
            > >> be 'mainstream' (15
            > >>> years?) via C++ and Smalltalk, no? Design Patterns is running on
            > >> what, 13
            > >>> years(?) and it is not there. Do you all think 15 years is the
            > >> time frame?
            > >>> 20? I do not mean the leading team of gurus we have in this group,
            > >> but when
            > >>> will your average mid-level programmer  schlepping into the office
            > >> every day
            > >>> start finding refactorings into the Adapter pattern (unifying 20
            > >>> interfaces), and doing Agile modeling on a whiteboard with
            > >> colleagues,
            > >>> perhaps on a refactoring of old C++ or even C code that is being
            > >> moved to C#
            > >>> (my personal favorite language as it is an international standard.
            > >> I just
            > >>> read an article about a 15 million line C# app running on Linux.
            > >> Give it 18
            > >>> months and C# and the FCL will be on every OS (but predictions are
            > >> always
            > >>> dangerous (grin)).
            > >>>
            > >>> This 15 year rule seems not to hold for technologies that are
            > >> tangible and
            > >>> packaged, as they are rapidly accepted and are evolving
            > >> constantly, but it
            > >>> seems to hold for practices like pair programming, TDD, and
            > >> technical design
            > >>> and refactoring using Patterns. We could call it the Doubt,
            > >> Uncertainty,
            > >>> Misunderstanding and Botched-Attempt (DUMB) Principal. <grin>.. My
            > >>> presentation tomorrow (today if you read this Thursday).. I can't
            > >> wait.
            > >>>
            > >>> For my presentation, I just happen to be covering a topic that is
            > >> totally
            > >>> different then what my book is about and this group: Advanced
            > >> Multithreading
            > >>> in C#. So many of you might want to skip this one and come to my
            > >> next one
            > >>> which is tentatively: 'Best Software Engineering Practices in .NET
            > >>> Development: How to be Agile, Refactor Code to Design Patterns and
            > >>> Everything In-between' which is based on a paper I am writing for
            > >> various
            > >>> publications and is nothing short of a warning shot over the bow.
            > >> My book is
            > >>> the full scale invasion. Give it 15 years and perhaps it will sell
            > >> <grin>.
            > >>> However you are all incredibly welcome to not only come, but to
            > >> join me for
            > >>> the dinner I have planned afterwards.
            > >>>
            > >>> Kind Regards,
            > >>> Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO agilefactor
            > >>> www.agilefactor.com
            > >>>
            > >>> P.S. Anyone know a good CEO so I can just be 'Chief Technologist'?
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            > >> dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
            > >>
            > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >>
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > > --------------------~--> Make
            > > a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
            > > Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
            > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/AmOolB/TM
            > >
            > --------------------------------------------------------------------~-
            > >
            > >
            > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            > > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            > > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            >
            > ADVERTISEMENT
            > <image.tiff>
            > <image.tiff>
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            > • To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
            >  
            > • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >  
            > • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            > Service.
            >
            >
          • Rim, Mark
            I m relatively inexperienced with domain modelling. The models I make suck butt. But I stick to it because I really see value in Eric Evan s ubiquitous
            Message 5 of 28 , Oct 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm relatively inexperienced with domain modelling. The models I make suck
              butt. But I stick to it because I really see value in Eric Evan's ubiquitous
              language.

              Luckily, I've gotten quite disciplined with TDD which tends to clean up most
              of the glaring errors in design. I've learned how to recognize various code
              smells. I've also internalized a lot of design patterns and refactoring
              techniques which help address many of the code smells. The unit tests make the
              refactoring possible in the first place. I keep on the lookout for
              incongruencies between the domain and my code. Over time this butt-sucking
              design gets less sucky. Often it gets quite bearable.

              I still tend to have at least one "gummy muck" object. An object which has too
              many responsibilities, or gets assigned all responsiblities I don't know what
              to do with. Perhaps one day I'll learn some techniques for refactoring out
              gummy mucks.

              I get the feeling that making good object models is tough for even experienced
              OO folks. Perhaps that's why this domain modelling thing is so unpopular among
              programmers. polymorphism can be explained in few minutes. domain modelling is
              difficult to explain for even object gurus. And us busy programmers don't have
              time for vague theories that take more than a few minutes.

              --Choy



              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Sathyanarayanan Srinivasan [mailto:cssathya@...]
              > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 9:45 AM
              > To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
              >
              >
              > My take is that people still don't fully understand how to do
              > OO using OO
              > languages. I would probably think that the major reason for
              > this is the rush
              > by companies to market their product, thereby reducing the
              > timeline to a
              > minimum. They want programs to be written in the latest
              > technologies because
              > it's cool (i.e., more marketable), but don't bother to
              > educate or give time
              > to developers to educate themselves. As a result, the
              > developers, in their
              > hurry to meet their deadlines, fall back to what they already know -
              > procedural programming.
              >
              > I agree with Gene in that this is a grass-roots effort. You
              > cannot expect
              > things to change all of a sudden. But as more and more
              > colleges teach OO in
              > Software courses and as more and more professionals who
              > understand and work
              > with people who don't, I believe the conversion will take
              > place. It will
              > definitely be painful (ask any guy who converted a legacy app
              > to a new app),
              > but it will happen nevertheless.
              >
              > I recently created a presentation based on our discussions in
              > the group on
              > principles. A friend of mine gave the presentation to his
              > group (of around
              > 40-50), who are involved in a large enterprise (J2EE)
              > software. We made
              > these observations.
              >
              > 1. Most of the attendees were software professionals with at
              > least 3 years
              > of experience.
              > 2. Most of them knew Java or closely related OO language.
              > 3. Almost none of them had heard of the 5 principles
              > explained in Martin's
              > book.
              > 4. Almost all of them were interested and enthusiastic at the
              > end on hearing
              > the principles, which was evident from insightful questions
              > that they asked
              > at the end. In fact, one person pointed out a place in their existing
              > design, which potentially violated LSP!
              >
              > From this, I believe that hope is definitely there.
              >
              >
              > "It is easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of
              > computers by the
              > sense of accomplishment you get from getting them to run at all."
              >
              > - Douglas Adams
              > http://www.cssathya.com
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ----Original Message Follows----
              > From: Gene Volovich <gene@...>
              > Reply-To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
              > To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
              > Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:32:38 -0400
              >
              > I'm not so sure about that - I think OO, and I do mean an OO way of
              > thinking about the problem domain, IS becoming standard
              > because it is a
              > natural way to think about the domain when it comes to (especially
              > large) business and enterprise systems, the majority of software
              > projects these days. If in all the schools and on the job training
              > people are taught to think in terms of objects, I don't see why they
              > wouldn't adopt that way of thinking. It's true that you see a lot of
              > procedural code written in OO languages, but I think for larger
              > projects, and especially using DDD, it is so natural to adopt an OO
              > view of the domain that people will do so, and it won't take a genius
              > to do it.
              >
              > Gene
              >
              >
              > On Oct 1, 2004, at 1:22 AM, Lenny Primak wrote:
              >
              > > I agree with that first sentence wholeheartedly.
              > > Few people know what polymorphism truly is, let alone use and
              > > develop a proper object model. OO is certainly not mainstream,
              > > and will not be in at least 100 years, if ever.
              > >
              > > On Sep 30, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Jim Espaillat wrote:
              > >
              > > > I disagree that OO is mainstream. Certainly OO LANGUAGES are
              > > > mainstream, but as we all know, using an OO language does not
              > > > automatically cause you to create OO code. Ask the typical
              > > > programmer if he knows OO, and he'll typically respond with
              > > > something like, "Yes, I know OO, I work in Java", as if
              > they were
              > > > one and the same. (This is not, of course, limited to
              > just Java,
              > > > but also C++, C#, PowerBuilder, and any other
              > mainstream OO language
              > > > you care to think of.) Yet you look at what they're
              > producing, and
              > > > 9 times out of 10 it's procedural code wrapped inside a
              > few objects.
              > > >
              > > > Unfortunately, I don't think OO will ever become mainstream. I
              > > > consider myself a pretty smart guy, and I didn't get it
              > at first.
              > > > Yes you need smarts, but you also need to have enough
              > experience to
              > > > recognize A) how the paradigm is different, and B) that it's a
              > > > better one.
              > > >
              > > > I haven't seen any survey done on this (nor would it be
              > accurate,
              > > > since so many think they're doing OO when they're
              > really not), but
              > > > if I had to take an educated guess, I would say about
              > 10 percent of
              > > > developers actually understand OO. Making things worse, in my
              > > > experience I've always had to co-exist with other
              > developers on a
              > > > project, so that even if I wanted to build things the
              > right way, it
              > > > was often an accomplishment just to get them to not put business
              > > > logic in the GUI, never mind having any sort of a true
              > object model.
              > > >
              > > > Meanwhile design patterns, as we know them at least, are useless
              > > > without an OO underpinning, so even if we concede that
              > half the true
              > > > OO developers know about patterns, that's still only 5
              > percent of
              > > > the universe. And I may be estimating high; as you
              > point out, you
              > > > only find 1 percent of developers suitable for hiring.
              > > >
              > > > I recently joined this group, partly to learn
              > something, but also
              > > > partly to not feel quite so alone in this effort. I
              > truly wish I
              > > > didn't have to work in an enviromnent where I have to maintain
              > > > programs that don't work well, are written horribly, and yet I'm
              > > > constrained by managers who won't let me change something just
              > > > because I don't like it ("if it ain't broke...", but how do you
              > > > convince them it IS broken?).
              > > >
              > > > --
              > > > Jim Espaillat
              > > > Delphinus Consulting, Inc.
              > > > www.delphinusinc.com
              > > >
              > > > PS. I'm not a .NET guy (PB actually), but I'll
              > definitely take you
              > > > up on the next talk. One of the best parts about thinking at a
              > > > sufficiently high level of abstraction is that the
              > language becomes
              > > > secondary. Good thing, too; I've yet to see any good
              > OO books come
              > > > out with PB examples...
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com, "Damon Carr"
              > <damon@a...> wrote:
              > > >>
              > > >> Gene,
              > > >>
              > > >> Your kind words are appreciated. It's the professionals like
              > > > yourself that
              > > >> will fix the problems we all face one programmer at a
              > time, bottom
              > > > up (where
              > > >> I believe it has to happen).
              > > >>
              > > >> As a man who is 'fighting the good fight' it's nice to
              > hear some
              > > > positive
              > > >> feedback (as it sounds like you are as well). The fact that we
              > > > have to fight
              > > >> to get accepted what is proven to work better is it is
              > confounding
              > > > (although
              > > >> I think from 10 years in NYC I should know enough about the
              > > > Psychology of
              > > >> change, politics, etc. to see how it has been misapplied and
              > > > misunderstood).
              > > >>
              > > >> Like someone said "all great men our misunderstood" perhaps It
              > > > should also
              > > >> be "all software engineering advancements are misunderstood (at
              > > > least in
              > > >> most of the east cost, Midwest and South for at 15 years or so,
              > > > except in
              > > >> Academia and the top 5% of the Software
              > Organizations". I come from
              > > >> California (Northern), where the exposure to innovation rate is
              > > > more like
              > > >> 50% and we would never stand for the standards I see
              > every day in
              > > > Financial
              > > >> Services in NYC (that is the only industry I can speak with
              > > > authority on, as
              > > >> that is where I have led on the 'large projects' over
              > $1,000,000)
              > > > although
              > > >> my other experiences have verified my experiences in other
              > > > industries in
              > > >> NYC). Since the day I got here I was shocked. Although
              > my current
              > > > position
              > > >> is a welcome change I must say. But statistically it
              > is in the 3rd
              > > > standard
              > > >> deviation.
              > > >>
              > > >> I think that is how long it took Object-Oriented to
              > > > be 'mainstream' (15
              > > >> years?) via C++ and Smalltalk, no? Design Patterns is
              > running on
              > > > what, 13
              > > >> years(?) and it is not there. Do you all think 15 years is the
              > > > time frame?
              > > >> 20? I do not mean the leading team of gurus we have in
              > this group,
              > > > but when
              > > >> will your average mid-level programmer schlepping
              > into the office
              > > > every day
              > > >> start finding refactorings into the Adapter pattern
              > (unifying 20
              > > >> interfaces), and doing Agile modeling on a whiteboard with
              > > > colleagues,
              > > >> perhaps on a refactoring of old C++ or even C code
              > that is being
              > > > moved to C#
              > > >> (my personal favorite language as it is an
              > international standard.
              > > > I just
              > > >> read an article about a 15 million line C# app running
              > on Linux.
              > > > Give it 18
              > > >> months and C# and the FCL will be on every OS (but
              > predictions are
              > > > always
              > > >> dangerous (grin)).
              > > >>
              > > >> This 15 year rule seems not to hold for technologies that are
              > > > tangible and
              > > >> packaged, as they are rapidly accepted and are evolving
              > > > constantly, but it
              > > >> seems to hold for practices like pair programming, TDD, and
              > > > technical design
              > > >> and refactoring using Patterns. We could call it the Doubt,
              > > > Uncertainty,
              > > >> Misunderstanding and Botched-Attempt (DUMB) Principal.
              > <grin>.. My
              > > >> presentation tomorrow (today if you read this
              > Thursday).. I can't
              > > > wait.
              > > >>
              > > >> For my presentation, I just happen to be covering a
              > topic that is
              > > > totally
              > > >> different then what my book is about and this group: Advanced
              > > > Multithreading
              > > >> in C#. So many of you might want to skip this one and
              > come to my
              > > > next one
              > > >> which is tentatively: 'Best Software Engineering
              > Practices in .NET
              > > >> Development: How to be Agile, Refactor Code to Design
              > Patterns and
              > > >> Everything In-between' which is based on a paper I am
              > writing for
              > > > various
              > > >> publications and is nothing short of a warning shot
              > over the bow.
              > > > My book is
              > > >> the full scale invasion. Give it 15 years and perhaps
              > it will sell
              > > > <grin>.
              > > >> However you are all incredibly welcome to not only come, but to
              > > > join me for
              > > >> the dinner I have planned afterwards.
              > > >>
              > > >> Kind Regards,
              > > >> Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO
              > > >> agilefactor
              > > >> www.agilefactor.com
              > > >>
              > > >> P.S. Anyone know a good CEO so I can just be 'Chief
              > Technologist'?
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > > > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
              > > >
              > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > >
              > > ADVERTISEMENT
              > > <image.tiff>
              > > <image.tiff>
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
              > >
              > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > >
              > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
              > Yahoo! Terms of
              > > Service.
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > --------------------~-->
              > Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
              > Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
              > http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/AmOolB/TM
              > --------------------------------------------------------------
              > ------~->
              >
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >

              ==============================================================================
              This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received
              this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was
              misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB
              retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network.
              Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they
              are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
              ==============================================================================
            • Lenny Primak
              Unfortunately, the mainstream right now is actually that the manager tells the coder to do this when they join the project, and the coder actually never gets
              Message 6 of 28 , Oct 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Unfortunately, the mainstream right now is actually that the manager
                tells the coder
                to 'do this' when they join the project, and the coder actually never
                gets the picture
                from the start, so they can't think about the problem domain in an OO way.
                In order to do things "the right way" an investment needs to be made
                upfront,
                that few managers are willing to do.

                Gene Volovich wrote:

                >I'm not so sure about that - I think OO, and I do mean an OO way of
                >thinking about the problem domain, IS becoming standard because it is a
                >natural way to think about the domain when it comes to (especially
                >large) business and enterprise systems, the majority of software
                >projects these days. If in all the schools and on the job training
                >people are taught to think in terms of objects, I don't see why they
                >wouldn't adopt that way of thinking. It's true that you see a lot of
                >procedural code written in OO languages, but I think for larger
                >projects, and especially using DDD, it is so natural to adopt an OO
                >view of the domain that people will do so, and it won't take a genius
                >to do it.
                >
                >Gene
                >
                >
                >On Oct 1, 2004, at 1:22 AM, Lenny Primak wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                >>I agree with that first sentence wholeheartedly.
                >> Few people know what polymorphism truly is, let alone use and
                >> develop a proper object model. OO is certainly not mainstream,
                >> and will not be in at least 100 years, if ever.
                >>
                >> On Sep 30, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Jim Espaillat wrote:
                >>
                >> > I disagree that OO is mainstream. Certainly OO LANGUAGES are
                >> > mainstream, but as we all know, using an OO language does not
                >> > automatically cause you to create OO code. Ask the typical
                >> > programmer if he knows OO, and he'll typically respond with
                >> > something like, "Yes, I know OO, I work in Java", as if they were
                >> > one and the same. (This is not, of course, limited to just Java,
                >> > but also C++, C#, PowerBuilder, and any other mainstream OO language
                >> > you care to think of.) Yet you look at what they're producing, and
                >> > 9 times out of 10 it's procedural code wrapped inside a few objects.
                >> >
                >> > Unfortunately, I don't think OO will ever become mainstream. I
                >> > consider myself a pretty smart guy, and I didn't get it at first.
                >> > Yes you need smarts, but you also need to have enough experience to
                >> > recognize A) how the paradigm is different, and B) that it's a
                >> > better one.
                >> >
                >> > I haven't seen any survey done on this (nor would it be accurate,
                >> > since so many think they're doing OO when they're really not), but
                >> > if I had to take an educated guess, I would say about 10 percent of
                >> > developers actually understand OO. Making things worse, in my
                >> > experience I've always had to co-exist with other developers on a
                >> > project, so that even if I wanted to build things the right way, it
                >> > was often an accomplishment just to get them to not put business
                >> > logic in the GUI, never mind having any sort of a true object model.
                >> >
                >> > Meanwhile design patterns, as we know them at least, are useless
                >> > without an OO underpinning, so even if we concede that half the true
                >> > OO developers know about patterns, that's still only 5 percent of
                >> > the universe. And I may be estimating high; as you point out, you
                >> > only find 1 percent of developers suitable for hiring.
                >> >
                >> > I recently joined this group, partly to learn something, but also
                >> > partly to not feel quite so alone in this effort. I truly wish I
                >> > didn't have to work in an enviromnent where I have to maintain
                >> > programs that don't work well, are written horribly, and yet I'm
                >> > constrained by managers who won't let me change something just
                >> > because I don't like it ("if it ain't broke...", but how do you
                >> > convince them it IS broken?).
                >> >
                >> > --
                >> > Jim Espaillat
                >> > Delphinus Consulting, Inc.
                >> > www.delphinusinc.com
                >> >
                >> > PS. I'm not a .NET guy (PB actually), but I'll definitely take you
                >> > up on the next talk. One of the best parts about thinking at a
                >> > sufficiently high level of abstraction is that the language becomes
                >> > secondary. Good thing, too; I've yet to see any good OO books come
                >> > out with PB examples...
                >> >
                >> >
                >> > --- In dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com, "Damon Carr" <damon@a...> wrote:
                >> >>
                >> >> Gene,
                >> >>
                >> >> Your kind words are appreciated. It's the professionals like
                >> > yourself that
                >> >> will fix the problems we all face one programmer at a time, bottom
                >> > up (where
                >> >> I believe it has to happen).
                >> >>
                >> >> As a man who is 'fighting the good fight' it's nice to hear some
                >> > positive
                >> >> feedback (as it sounds like you are as well). The fact that we
                >> > have to fight
                >> >> to get accepted what is proven to work better is it is confounding
                >> > (although
                >> >> I think from 10 years in NYC I should know enough about the
                >> > Psychology of
                >> >> change, politics, etc. to see how it has been misapplied and
                >> > misunderstood).
                >> >>
                >> >> Like someone said "all great men our misunderstood" perhaps It
                >> > should also
                >> >> be "all software engineering advancements are misunderstood (at
                >> > least in
                >> >> most of the east cost, Midwest and South for at 15 years or so,
                >> > except in
                >> >> Academia and the top 5% of the Software Organizations". I come from
                >> >> California (Northern), where the exposure to innovation rate is
                >> > more like
                >> >> 50% and we would never stand for the standards I see every day in
                >> > Financial
                >> >> Services in NYC (that is the only industry I can speak with
                >> > authority on, as
                >> >> that is where I have led on the 'large projects' over $1,000,000)
                >> > although
                >> >> my other experiences have verified my experiences in other
                >> > industries in
                >> >> NYC). Since the day I got here I was shocked. Although my current
                >> > position
                >> >> is a welcome change I must say. But statistically it is in the 3rd
                >> > standard
                >> >> deviation.
                >> >>
                >> >> I think that is how long it took Object-Oriented to
                >> > be 'mainstream' (15
                >> >> years?) via C++ and Smalltalk, no? Design Patterns is running on
                >> > what, 13
                >> >> years(?) and it is not there. Do you all think 15 years is the
                >> > time frame?
                >> >> 20? I do not mean the leading team of gurus we have in this group,
                >> > but when
                >> >> will your average mid-level programmer schlepping into the office
                >> > every day
                >> >> start finding refactorings into the Adapter pattern (unifying 20
                >> >> interfaces), and doing Agile modeling on a whiteboard with
                >> > colleagues,
                >> >> perhaps on a refactoring of old C++ or even C code that is being
                >> > moved to C#
                >> >> (my personal favorite language as it is an international standard.
                >> > I just
                >> >> read an article about a 15 million line C# app running on Linux.
                >> > Give it 18
                >> >> months and C# and the FCL will be on every OS (but predictions are
                >> > always
                >> >> dangerous (grin)).
                >> >>
                >> >> This 15 year rule seems not to hold for technologies that are
                >> > tangible and
                >> >> packaged, as they are rapidly accepted and are evolving
                >> > constantly, but it
                >> >> seems to hold for practices like pair programming, TDD, and
                >> > technical design
                >> >> and refactoring using Patterns. We could call it the Doubt,
                >> > Uncertainty,
                >> >> Misunderstanding and Botched-Attempt (DUMB) Principal. <grin>.. My
                >> >> presentation tomorrow (today if you read this Thursday).. I can't
                >> > wait.
                >> >>
                >> >> For my presentation, I just happen to be covering a topic that is
                >> > totally
                >> >> different then what my book is about and this group: Advanced
                >> > Multithreading
                >> >> in C#. So many of you might want to skip this one and come to my
                >> > next one
                >> >> which is tentatively: 'Best Software Engineering Practices in .NET
                >> >> Development: How to be Agile, Refactor Code to Design Patterns and
                >> >> Everything In-between' which is based on a paper I am writing for
                >> > various
                >> >> publications and is nothing short of a warning shot over the bow.
                >> > My book is
                >> >> the full scale invasion. Give it 15 years and perhaps it will sell
                >> > <grin>.
                >> >> However you are all incredibly welcome to not only come, but to
                >> > join me for
                >> >> the dinner I have planned afterwards.
                >> >>
                >> >> Kind Regards,
                >> >> Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO
                >> >> agilefactor
                >> >> www.agilefactor.com
                >> >>
                >> >> P.S. Anyone know a good CEO so I can just be 'Chief Technologist'?
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                >> > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                >> >
                >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                >>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                >>
                >>ADVERTISEMENT
                >><image.tiff>
                >><image.tiff>
                >>
                >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                >>
                >> • To visit your group on the web, go to:
                >>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
                >>
                >> • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                >>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >>
                >> • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                >>Service.
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Lenny Primak
                OO programming is more of an art then a sciense, that s why it s so difficult to deliver quantitatively good code. That s why we use terms like smells , and
                Message 7 of 28 , Oct 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  OO programming is more of an art then a sciense, that's why it's so
                  difficult to deliver
                  quantitatively good code. That's why we use terms like "smells", and
                  one design is not
                  necessarily right or wrong. That's why working systems seem to be "alive".
                  That's when you know stuff works when it's supple and feels adaptive
                  with change,
                  and it susprises you in a good way.

                  Rim, Mark wrote:

                  >I'm relatively inexperienced with domain modelling. The models I make suck
                  >butt. But I stick to it because I really see value in Eric Evan's ubiquitous
                  >language.
                  >
                  >Luckily, I've gotten quite disciplined with TDD which tends to clean up most
                  >of the glaring errors in design. I've learned how to recognize various code
                  >smells. I've also internalized a lot of design patterns and refactoring
                  >techniques which help address many of the code smells. The unit tests make the
                  >refactoring possible in the first place. I keep on the lookout for
                  >incongruencies between the domain and my code. Over time this butt-sucking
                  >design gets less sucky. Often it gets quite bearable.
                  >
                  >I still tend to have at least one "gummy muck" object. An object which has too
                  >many responsibilities, or gets assigned all responsiblities I don't know what
                  >to do with. Perhaps one day I'll learn some techniques for refactoring out
                  >gummy mucks.
                  >
                  >I get the feeling that making good object models is tough for even experienced
                  >OO folks. Perhaps that's why this domain modelling thing is so unpopular among
                  >programmers. polymorphism can be explained in few minutes. domain modelling is
                  >difficult to explain for even object gurus. And us busy programmers don't have
                  >time for vague theories that take more than a few minutes.
                  >
                  >--Choy
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >>-----Original Message-----
                  >>From: Sathyanarayanan Srinivasan [mailto:cssathya@...]
                  >>Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 9:45 AM
                  >>To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                  >>Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>My take is that people still don't fully understand how to do
                  >>OO using OO
                  >>languages. I would probably think that the major reason for
                  >>this is the rush
                  >>by companies to market their product, thereby reducing the
                  >>timeline to a
                  >>minimum. They want programs to be written in the latest
                  >>technologies because
                  >>it's cool (i.e., more marketable), but don't bother to
                  >>educate or give time
                  >>to developers to educate themselves. As a result, the
                  >>developers, in their
                  >>hurry to meet their deadlines, fall back to what they already know -
                  >>procedural programming.
                  >>
                  >>I agree with Gene in that this is a grass-roots effort. You
                  >>cannot expect
                  >>things to change all of a sudden. But as more and more
                  >>colleges teach OO in
                  >>Software courses and as more and more professionals who
                  >>understand and work
                  >>with people who don't, I believe the conversion will take
                  >>place. It will
                  >>definitely be painful (ask any guy who converted a legacy app
                  >>to a new app),
                  >>but it will happen nevertheless.
                  >>
                  >>I recently created a presentation based on our discussions in
                  >>the group on
                  >>principles. A friend of mine gave the presentation to his
                  >>group (of around
                  >>40-50), who are involved in a large enterprise (J2EE)
                  >>software. We made
                  >>these observations.
                  >>
                  >>1. Most of the attendees were software professionals with at
                  >>least 3 years
                  >>of experience.
                  >>2. Most of them knew Java or closely related OO language.
                  >>3. Almost none of them had heard of the 5 principles
                  >>explained in Martin's
                  >>book.
                  >>4. Almost all of them were interested and enthusiastic at the
                  >>end on hearing
                  >>the principles, which was evident from insightful questions
                  >>that they asked
                  >>at the end. In fact, one person pointed out a place in their existing
                  >>design, which potentially violated LSP!
                  >>
                  >>From this, I believe that hope is definitely there.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>"It is easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of
                  >>computers by the
                  >>sense of accomplishment you get from getting them to run at all."
                  >>
                  >>- Douglas Adams
                  >>http://www.cssathya.com
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>----Original Message Follows----
                  >>From: Gene Volovich <gene@...>
                  >>Reply-To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                  >>To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                  >>Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
                  >>Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:32:38 -0400
                  >>
                  >>I'm not so sure about that - I think OO, and I do mean an OO way of
                  >>thinking about the problem domain, IS becoming standard
                  >>because it is a
                  >>natural way to think about the domain when it comes to (especially
                  >>large) business and enterprise systems, the majority of software
                  >>projects these days. If in all the schools and on the job training
                  >>people are taught to think in terms of objects, I don't see why they
                  >>wouldn't adopt that way of thinking. It's true that you see a lot of
                  >>procedural code written in OO languages, but I think for larger
                  >>projects, and especially using DDD, it is so natural to adopt an OO
                  >>view of the domain that people will do so, and it won't take a genius
                  >>to do it.
                  >>
                  >>Gene
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>On Oct 1, 2004, at 1:22 AM, Lenny Primak wrote:
                  >>
                  >> > I agree with that first sentence wholeheartedly.
                  >> > Few people know what polymorphism truly is, let alone use and
                  >> > develop a proper object model. OO is certainly not mainstream,
                  >> > and will not be in at least 100 years, if ever.
                  >> >
                  >> > On Sep 30, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Jim Espaillat wrote:
                  >> >
                  >> > > I disagree that OO is mainstream. Certainly OO LANGUAGES are
                  >> > > mainstream, but as we all know, using an OO language does not
                  >> > > automatically cause you to create OO code. Ask the typical
                  >> > > programmer if he knows OO, and he'll typically respond with
                  >> > > something like, "Yes, I know OO, I work in Java", as if
                  >>they were
                  >> > > one and the same. (This is not, of course, limited to
                  >>just Java,
                  >> > > but also C++, C#, PowerBuilder, and any other
                  >>mainstream OO language
                  >> > > you care to think of.) Yet you look at what they're
                  >>producing, and
                  >> > > 9 times out of 10 it's procedural code wrapped inside a
                  >>few objects.
                  >> > >
                  >> > > Unfortunately, I don't think OO will ever become mainstream. I
                  >> > > consider myself a pretty smart guy, and I didn't get it
                  >>at first.
                  >> > > Yes you need smarts, but you also need to have enough
                  >>experience to
                  >> > > recognize A) how the paradigm is different, and B) that it's a
                  >> > > better one.
                  >> > >
                  >> > > I haven't seen any survey done on this (nor would it be
                  >>accurate,
                  >> > > since so many think they're doing OO when they're
                  >>really not), but
                  >> > > if I had to take an educated guess, I would say about
                  >>10 percent of
                  >> > > developers actually understand OO. Making things worse, in my
                  >> > > experience I've always had to co-exist with other
                  >>developers on a
                  >> > > project, so that even if I wanted to build things the
                  >>right way, it
                  >> > > was often an accomplishment just to get them to not put business
                  >> > > logic in the GUI, never mind having any sort of a true
                  >>object model.
                  >> > >
                  >> > > Meanwhile design patterns, as we know them at least, are useless
                  >> > > without an OO underpinning, so even if we concede that
                  >>half the true
                  >> > > OO developers know about patterns, that's still only 5
                  >>percent of
                  >> > > the universe. And I may be estimating high; as you
                  >>point out, you
                  >> > > only find 1 percent of developers suitable for hiring.
                  >> > >
                  >> > > I recently joined this group, partly to learn
                  >>something, but also
                  >> > > partly to not feel quite so alone in this effort. I
                  >>truly wish I
                  >> > > didn't have to work in an enviromnent where I have to maintain
                  >> > > programs that don't work well, are written horribly, and yet I'm
                  >> > > constrained by managers who won't let me change something just
                  >> > > because I don't like it ("if it ain't broke...", but how do you
                  >> > > convince them it IS broken?).
                  >> > >
                  >> > > --
                  >> > > Jim Espaillat
                  >> > > Delphinus Consulting, Inc.
                  >> > > www.delphinusinc.com
                  >> > >
                  >> > > PS. I'm not a .NET guy (PB actually), but I'll
                  >>definitely take you
                  >> > > up on the next talk. One of the best parts about thinking at a
                  >> > > sufficiently high level of abstraction is that the
                  >>language becomes
                  >> > > secondary. Good thing, too; I've yet to see any good
                  >>OO books come
                  >> > > out with PB examples...
                  >> > >
                  >> > >
                  >> > > --- In dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com, "Damon Carr"
                  >><damon@a...> wrote:
                  >> > >>
                  >> > >> Gene,
                  >> > >>
                  >> > >> Your kind words are appreciated. It's the professionals like
                  >> > > yourself that
                  >> > >> will fix the problems we all face one programmer at a
                  >>time, bottom
                  >> > > up (where
                  >> > >> I believe it has to happen).
                  >> > >>
                  >> > >> As a man who is 'fighting the good fight' it's nice to
                  >>hear some
                  >> > > positive
                  >> > >> feedback (as it sounds like you are as well). The fact that we
                  >> > > have to fight
                  >> > >> to get accepted what is proven to work better is it is
                  >>confounding
                  >> > > (although
                  >> > >> I think from 10 years in NYC I should know enough about the
                  >> > > Psychology of
                  >> > >> change, politics, etc. to see how it has been misapplied and
                  >> > > misunderstood).
                  >> > >>
                  >> > >> Like someone said "all great men our misunderstood" perhaps It
                  >> > > should also
                  >> > >> be "all software engineering advancements are misunderstood (at
                  >> > > least in
                  >> > >> most of the east cost, Midwest and South for at 15 years or so,
                  >> > > except in
                  >> > >> Academia and the top 5% of the Software
                  >>Organizations". I come from
                  >> > >> California (Northern), where the exposure to innovation rate is
                  >> > > more like
                  >> > >> 50% and we would never stand for the standards I see
                  >>every day in
                  >> > > Financial
                  >> > >> Services in NYC (that is the only industry I can speak with
                  >> > > authority on, as
                  >> > >> that is where I have led on the 'large projects' over
                  >>$1,000,000)
                  >> > > although
                  >> > >> my other experiences have verified my experiences in other
                  >> > > industries in
                  >> > >> NYC). Since the day I got here I was shocked. Although
                  >>my current
                  >> > > position
                  >> > >> is a welcome change I must say. But statistically it
                  >>is in the 3rd
                  >> > > standard
                  >> > >> deviation.
                  >> > >>
                  >> > >> I think that is how long it took Object-Oriented to
                  >> > > be 'mainstream' (15
                  >> > >> years?) via C++ and Smalltalk, no? Design Patterns is
                  >>running on
                  >> > > what, 13
                  >> > >> years(?) and it is not there. Do you all think 15 years is the
                  >> > > time frame?
                  >> > >> 20? I do not mean the leading team of gurus we have in
                  >>this group,
                  >> > > but when
                  >> > >> will your average mid-level programmer schlepping
                  >>into the office
                  >> > > every day
                  >> > >> start finding refactorings into the Adapter pattern
                  >>(unifying 20
                  >> > >> interfaces), and doing Agile modeling on a whiteboard with
                  >> > > colleagues,
                  >> > >> perhaps on a refactoring of old C++ or even C code
                  >>that is being
                  >> > > moved to C#
                  >> > >> (my personal favorite language as it is an
                  >>international standard.
                  >> > > I just
                  >> > >> read an article about a 15 million line C# app running
                  >>on Linux.
                  >> > > Give it 18
                  >> > >> months and C# and the FCL will be on every OS (but
                  >>predictions are
                  >> > > always
                  >> > >> dangerous (grin)).
                  >> > >>
                  >> > >> This 15 year rule seems not to hold for technologies that are
                  >> > > tangible and
                  >> > >> packaged, as they are rapidly accepted and are evolving
                  >> > > constantly, but it
                  >> > >> seems to hold for practices like pair programming, TDD, and
                  >> > > technical design
                  >> > >> and refactoring using Patterns. We could call it the Doubt,
                  >> > > Uncertainty,
                  >> > >> Misunderstanding and Botched-Attempt (DUMB) Principal.
                  >><grin>.. My
                  >> > >> presentation tomorrow (today if you read this
                  >>Thursday).. I can't
                  >> > > wait.
                  >> > >>
                  >> > >> For my presentation, I just happen to be covering a
                  >>topic that is
                  >> > > totally
                  >> > >> different then what my book is about and this group: Advanced
                  >> > > Multithreading
                  >> > >> in C#. So many of you might want to skip this one and
                  >>come to my
                  >> > > next one
                  >> > >> which is tentatively: 'Best Software Engineering
                  >>Practices in .NET
                  >> > >> Development: How to be Agile, Refactor Code to Design
                  >>Patterns and
                  >> > >> Everything In-between' which is based on a paper I am
                  >>writing for
                  >> > > various
                  >> > >> publications and is nothing short of a warning shot
                  >>over the bow.
                  >> > > My book is
                  >> > >> the full scale invasion. Give it 15 years and perhaps
                  >>it will sell
                  >> > > <grin>.
                  >> > >> However you are all incredibly welcome to not only come, but to
                  >> > > join me for
                  >> > >> the dinner I have planned afterwards.
                  >> > >>
                  >> > >> Kind Regards,
                  >> > >> Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO
                  >> > >> agilefactor
                  >> > >> www.agilefactor.com
                  >> > >>
                  >> > >> P.S. Anyone know a good CEO so I can just be 'Chief
                  >>Technologist'?
                  >> > >
                  >> > >
                  >> > >
                  >> > >
                  >> > >
                  >> > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                  >> > > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                  >> > >
                  >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >> > >
                  >> > >
                  >> > >
                  >> > >
                  >> > >
                  >> >
                  >> >
                  >> >
                  >> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                  >> > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                  >> >
                  >> >
                  >> >
                  >> >
                  >> >
                  >> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  >> >
                  >> > ADVERTISEMENT
                  >> > <image.tiff>
                  >> > <image.tiff>
                  >> >
                  >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >> >
                  >> > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
                  >> >
                  >> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  >> > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >> >
                  >> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                  >>Yahoo! Terms of
                  >> > Service.
                  >> >
                  >> >
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                  >>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                  >>
                  >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  >>--------------------~-->
                  >>Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
                  >>Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                  >>http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/AmOolB/TM
                  >>--------------------------------------------------------------
                  >>------~->
                  >>
                  >>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                  >>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                  >>
                  >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >==============================================================================
                  >This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received
                  >this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was
                  >misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB
                  >retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network.
                  >Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they
                  >are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
                  >==============================================================================
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                  >
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Damon Carr
                  My take is that people still don t fully understand how to do OO using OO languages. I would probably think that the major reason for this is the rush by
                  Message 8 of 28 , Oct 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    My take is that people still don't fully understand how to do OO using OO
                    languages. I would probably think that the major reason for this is the rush
                    by companies to market their product, thereby reducing the timeline to a
                    minimum. They want programs to be written in the latest technologies because
                    it's cool (i.e., more marketable), but don't bother to educate or give time
                    to developers to educate themselves. As a result, the developers, in their
                    hurry to meet their deadlines, fall back to what they already know -
                    procedural programming.

                    When I search Amazon using their fantastic Web Services API on "Object
                    Oriented" in the title I get 1067 books. Most are crap but at least 1% are
                    not. That is at least 10 books, one I mention later.

                    I disagree. Anyone with a degree in Computer Science should not be able to
                    graduate without a complete OO mastery and courses taught using an OO
                    language. Perhaps the SCHOOLS need reform. Even if we cannot do that, there
                    are plenty of books a person can read to 'get it'.

                    After all, OO is modeled after HUMAN KNOWLEDGE PROCESSING. It is not all
                    that hard and I am astounded that people make it sound like such a high
                    mountain to climb. If you don't get it, then don't hire the person. If you
                    work with them buy them a book. If they don't read it try to get them fired.
                    I refuse to accept mediocrity or make excuses for people. That is why my
                    company is one of the fastest growing firms in NYC. I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT.
                    And neither should you. If you want to help me, and you are in the .NET
                    space email at: damon.carr@... and join my non-profit which is
                    dedicated to offering an alternative to going back to school. We will ensure
                    that a person with a certification from us will know many things: OO,
                    Patterns, Refactoring to Patterns, Agile Activities (TDD, Pair, etc.) as
                    well as UML and the ratio I invented for quantitatively measuring the
                    quality of an OO design, the best measure I am aware of. If you email I can
                    call you and we can talk about it, but I promised my publisher I would not
                    reveal the 'Carr Agility Ratio (CAR)' until the book is out. You can use
                    this ratio via any language that supports reflection, and if you have a
                    ratio of less then 1 you are doing good (BUT THAT IS CERTAINLY NO GUARANTEE
                    ON QUALITY. IT IS JUST AN INDICATOR).


                    I agree with Gene in that this is a grass-roots effort. You cannot expect
                    things to change all of a sudden. But as more and more colleges teach OO in
                    Software courses and as more and more professionals who understand and work
                    with people who don't, I believe the conversion will take place. It will
                    definitely be painful (ask any guy who converted a legacy app to a new app),
                    but it will happen nevertheless.



                    This is nuts. OO has been around what? 20 years? We could never have the
                    software we take for granted today without it as it fundamentally allows a
                    leap forward in manageable complexity. Add UML and Patterns and you have a
                    team with an exponential ability to manage complexity via architectural
                    segmentation on assignments and components. THAT is a crime Microsoft
                    committed. As I said before they focused on : 1) Components 2) Interfaces
                    and Composition. Well look at .NET, arguably the most complex enterprise
                    architecture on the planet (and I do like J2EE and Corba) but .NET, the more
                    I learn, the more I am astounded. And there are patterns everywhere and an
                    amazing discipline to 'best practice' OO Design (no flame mails please.. At
                    Columbia for my masters I converted probably 50-100 people to .NET when they
                    learned it was an ECMA standard (and the REAL cool part of .NET the FCL).
                    The web site 'the server side' just ran an article on .NET running 500,000
                    lines on Linux I believe. Once .NET has commercial implementations on all
                    major operating systems, Sun will tank completely in my opinion. Look at
                    Rotor and Mono for examples (www.go-mono.com) and
                    http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/07/SharedSourceCLI/ for Rotor.

                    Sidebar: Mono is a comprehensive open source development platform based on
                    the .NET framework that allows developers to build Linux and cross-platform
                    applications with unprecedented productivity. Mono's .NET implementation is
                    based on the ECMA standards for C# and the Common Language Infrastructure.

                    Go to the site for more.

                    After .NET is on all OSs what will Sun do? At Columbia I used to KILL other
                    teams when we did projects using BETA 1!


                    I recently created a presentation based on our discussions in the group on
                    principles. A friend of mine gave the presentation to his group (of around
                    40-50), who are involved in a large enterprise (J2EE) software. We made
                    these observations.

                    1. Most of the attendees were software professionals with at least 3 years
                    of experience.
                    2. Most of them knew Java or closely related OO language.
                    3. Almost none of them had heard of the 5 principles explained in Martin's
                    book.
                    4. Almost all of them were interested and enthusiastic at the end on hearing
                    the principles, which was evident from insightful questions that they asked
                    at the end. In fact, one person pointed out a place in their existing
                    design, which potentially violated LSP!

                    From this, I believe that hope is definitely there.



                    OF COURSE THERE IS. The moment this group gives up is the moment I will eat
                    my hat. You are the leaders and you have a tremendous responsibility (as do
                    I in my endeavors) to educate, advocate, evangelize, whatever.

                    I think this is a good book for the OO Challenged. What do you think?

                    Object-Oriented Thought Process, The (2nd Edition) (Developer's Library)
                    by Matt Weisfeld

                    Paperback: 288 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.70 x 9.00 x 7.01
                    Publisher: Sams; 2 edition (December 12, 2003)
                    ISBN: 0672326116

                    Or a more Philosophical book (and do not be spooked as it is from
                    Microsoft):

                    Professor West is a genius in my book.

                    Object Thinking (DV-Microsoft Professional)
                    by David West
                    Paperback: 366 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.10 x 8.98 x 7.40
                    Publisher: Microsoft Press; (March 10, 2004)
                    ISBN: 0735619654


                    And These:

                    * The Art of Objects: Object-Oriented Design and Architecture (The
                    Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series) by Yun-Tung Lau

                    * Object-Oriented Methods: Principles and Practice (3rd Edition) by Ian
                    Graham

                    * Object Design: Roles, Responsibilities, and Collaborations by Rebecca
                    Wirfs-Brock, Alan McKean (Rate it)

                    * The Object Primer : Agile Model-Driven Development with UML 2.0 by Scott
                    W. Ambler (Rated)


                    This book can be bought for 18 Bucks!

                    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/offer-listing/0672326116/ref=dp_pb_a//102-1
                    017660-7581767?condition=all

                    This is available also as an E-Book.

                    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001AV3J6/ref=ed_oe_d/102-101
                    7660-7581767?v=glance&s=books



                    START A CLASS. DON'T JUST COMPLAIN. DO SOMETHING! I started a non-profit
                    devoted to these ideals and I already work 80 hour weeks and I am
                    financially independent. So why do I do it? A moral imperative to educate.
                    If I do nothing I am guilty of a very serious moral problem in my own
                    philosophy. A long story....


                    And it is on Safari, probably the most amazing web resource for the
                    developer:

                    Free 30 day trial:

                    http://www.safaribooksonline.com/freedemo.asp

                    After you sign up you can read many of the books above. For example, when I
                    search across their thousands of books on "object oriented' I get these, as
                    the top 3:

                    1.
                    > Section: Bibliography Pattern-Oriented Analysis and Design: Composing
                    Patterns to Design Software Systems
                    By Sherif M. Yacoub, Hany H. Ammar
                    Slots : 2.0
                    Addison Wesley 2003/08/28
                    ... Object Oriented Programming, ECOOP '92, Springer LNCS 615 , pp.
                    133-152 , Utrecht, Netherlands, June/July 1992 . [Bass et al. 1998] L. Bass,
                    P. Clements, & R. Kazman . Software Architecture in Practice .
                    Addison-Wesley Longman , Boston, 1998 . [Batory & O'Malley 1992] D. Batory &
                    S. O'Malley ... More...


                    2.
                    > Section: Object-Oriented Programming with ActionScript Object-Oriented
                    Programming with ActionScript
                    By Branden Hall, Samuel Wan
                    Slots : 1.0
                    New Riders Publishing 2002/09/12
                    More...


                    3.
                    > Section: Object-Oriented Design Heuristics Object-Oriented Design
                    Heuristics
                    By Arthur J. Riel
                    Slots : 1.0
                    Addison Wesley 1996/04/30


                    When I sort by date I get nothing good. Lets refine our search to books with
                    OO in the title and sorted by date:

                    1. Object-Oriented Programming with ActionScript 2.0
                    By Jeff Tapper, James Talbot, Robin Haffner
                    Slots : 1.0
                    2004/04/03 New Riders Publishing 2004/02/17

                    2. Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis
                    and Design and the Unified Process, Second Edition
                    By Craig Larman
                    Slots : 1.0
                    Table of Contents
                    2004/01/25 Prentice Hall PTR 2001/07/16


                    The following I believe is the book we should be recommending to OO newbies:


                    3. Object-Oriented Thought Process, The, Second Edition
                    By Matt Weisfeld
                    Slots : 1.0
                    Table of Contents
                    2004/01/09 Sams Publishing 2003/12/10 On Bookshelf



                    4. Data Access Patterns: Database Interactions in Object-Oriented
                    Applications
                    By Clifton Nock
                    Slots : 1.0
                    Table of Contents
                    2003/12/04 Addison Wesley 2003/09/15



                    Below looks intersting.. But not for newbies:


                    5. Object-Oriented Design Heuristics
                    By Arthur J. Riel
                    Slots : 1.0
                    Table of Contents
                    2003/10/10 Addison Wesley 1996/04/30


                    6. Navigating C++ and Object-Oriented Design
                    By Paul Anderson, Gail Anderson
                    Slots : 1.0
                    Table of Contents
                    2003/07/30 Prentice Hall PTR 2003/02/12


                    7. Sams Teach Yourself Object-Oriented Programming with Visual BasicR .NET
                    in 21 Days, Second Edition
                    By Rich Simon, Leslie Koorhan, Ken Cox
                    Slots : 1.0
                    Table of Contents
                    2003/01/10 Sams Publishing 2002/02/21


                    8. Object-Oriented Programming with ActionScript
                    By Branden Hall, Samuel Wan
                    Slots : 1.0
                    Table of Contents
                    2002/12/10 New Riders Publishing 2002/09/12


                    Interesting below...


                    9. A Practical Guide to Testing Object-Oriented Software
                    By John D. McGregor, David A. Sykes
                    Slots : 1.0
                    Table of Contents
                    2002/11/27 Addison Wesley 2001/03/05


                    Pass...


                    10. Object-Oriented Programming with Visual Basic .NET
                    By J. P. Hamilton
                    Slots : 1.0
                    Table of Contents
                    2002/10/22 O'Reilly 2002/10/01


                    So this is another long email from me, but PLEASE, stop complaining and DO
                    SOMETHING.




                    Kind Regards,
                    Damon Wilder Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO
                    agilefactor
                    www.agilefactor.com

                    .NET SIG Leader - New York Software Industry Association (NYSIA
                    www.nysia.org)
                    Founder and President: 'Association for the Advancement of Software
                    Engineering in .NET' (AASET)
                    Microsoft Certified Partner and Visual Studio Industry Partner Affiliate
                    Professional Member - Association for Computing Machinery (www.acm.org)


                    agilefactor
                    80 Broad Street
                    5th Floor
                    New York, NY 10004

                    Voice 212.837.7788
                    Fax 212.859.7359

                    BLOG: http://agiledamon.blogspot.com/



                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Sathyanarayanan Srinivasan [mailto:cssathya@...]
                    Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 9:45 AM
                    To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book

                    My take is that people still don't fully understand how to do OO using OO
                    languages. I would probably think that the major reason for this is the rush
                    by companies to market their product, thereby reducing the timeline to a
                    minimum. They want programs to be written in the latest technologies because
                    it's cool (i.e., more marketable), but don't bother to educate or give time
                    to developers to educate themselves. As a result, the developers, in their
                    hurry to meet their deadlines, fall back to what they already know -
                    procedural programming.

                    I agree with Gene in that this is a grass-roots effort. You cannot expect
                    things to change all of a sudden. But as more and more colleges teach OO in
                    Software courses and as more and more professionals who understand and work
                    with people who don't, I believe the conversion will take place. It will
                    definitely be painful (ask any guy who converted a legacy app to a new app),
                    but it will happen nevertheless.

                    I recently created a presentation based on our discussions in the group on
                    principles. A friend of mine gave the presentation to his group (of around
                    40-50), who are involved in a large enterprise (J2EE) software. We made
                    these observations.

                    1. Most of the attendees were software professionals with at least 3 years
                    of experience.
                    2. Most of them knew Java or closely related OO language.
                    3. Almost none of them had heard of the 5 principles explained in Martin's
                    book.
                    4. Almost all of them were interested and enthusiastic at the end on hearing
                    the principles, which was evident from insightful questions that they asked
                    at the end. In fact, one person pointed out a place in their existing
                    design, which potentially violated LSP!

                    From this, I believe that hope is definitely there.


                    "It is easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of computers by the
                    sense of accomplishment you get from getting them to run at all."

                    - Douglas Adams
                    http://www.cssathya.com




                    ----Original Message Follows----
                    From: Gene Volovich <gene@...>
                    Reply-To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                    To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
                    Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:32:38 -0400

                    I'm not so sure about that - I think OO, and I do mean an OO way of thinking
                    about the problem domain, IS becoming standard because it is a natural way
                    to think about the domain when it comes to (especially
                    large) business and enterprise systems, the majority of software projects
                    these days. If in all the schools and on the job training people are taught
                    to think in terms of objects, I don't see why they wouldn't adopt that way
                    of thinking. It's true that you see a lot of procedural code written in OO
                    languages, but I think for larger projects, and especially using DDD, it is
                    so natural to adopt an OO view of the domain that people will do so, and it
                    won't take a genius to do it.

                    Gene


                    On Oct 1, 2004, at 1:22 AM, Lenny Primak wrote:

                    > I agree with that first sentence wholeheartedly.
                    > Few people know what polymorphism truly is, let alone use and >
                    develop a proper object model. OO is certainly not mainstream, > and will
                    not be in at least 100 years, if ever.
                    >
                    > On Sep 30, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Jim Espaillat wrote:
                    >
                    > > I disagree that OO is mainstream. Certainly OO LANGUAGES are > >
                    mainstream, but as we all know, using an OO language does not > >
                    automatically cause you to create OO code. Ask the typical > > programmer
                    if he knows OO, and he'll typically respond with > > something like, "Yes,
                    I know OO, I work in Java", as if they were > > one and the same. (This
                    is not, of course, limited to just Java, > > but also C++, C#,
                    PowerBuilder, and any other mainstream OO language > > you care to think
                    of.) Yet you look at what they're producing, and > > 9 times out of 10
                    it's procedural code wrapped inside a few objects.
                    > >
                    > > Unfortunately, I don't think OO will ever become mainstream. I > >
                    consider myself a pretty smart guy, and I didn't get it at first.
                    > > Yes you need smarts, but you also need to have enough experience to >
                    > recognize A) how the paradigm is different, and B) that it's a > >
                    better one.
                    > >
                    > > I haven't seen any survey done on this (nor would it be accurate, >
                    > since so many think they're doing OO when they're really not), but > >
                    if I had to take an educated guess, I would say about 10 percent of > >
                    developers actually understand OO. Making things worse, in my > >
                    experience I've always had to co-exist with other developers on a > >
                    project, so that even if I wanted to build things the right way, it > >
                    was often an accomplishment just to get them to not put business > > logic
                    in the GUI, never mind having any sort of a true object model.
                    > >
                    > > Meanwhile design patterns, as we know them at least, are useless > >
                    without an OO underpinning, so even if we concede that half the true > >
                    OO developers know about patterns, that's still only 5 percent of > > the
                    universe. And I may be estimating high; as you point out, you > > only
                    find 1 percent of developers suitable for hiring.
                    > >
                    > > I recently joined this group, partly to learn something, but also >
                    > partly to not feel quite so alone in this effort. I truly wish I > >
                    didn't have to work in an enviromnent where I have to maintain > >
                    programs that don't work well, are written horribly, and yet I'm > >
                    constrained by managers who won't let me change something just > > because
                    I don't like it ("if it ain't broke...", but how do you > > convince them
                    it IS broken?).
                    > >
                    > > --
                    > > Jim Espaillat
                    > > Delphinus Consulting, Inc.
                    > > www.delphinusinc.com
                    > >
                    > > PS. I'm not a .NET guy (PB actually), but I'll definitely take you >
                    > up on the next talk. One of the best parts about thinking at a > >
                    sufficiently high level of abstraction is that the language becomes > >
                    secondary. Good thing, too; I've yet to see any good OO books come > >
                    out with PB examples...
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com, "Damon Carr" <damon@a...> wrote:
                    > >>
                    > >> Gene,
                    > >>
                    > >> Your kind words are appreciated. It's the professionals like > >
                    yourself that > >> will fix the problems we all face one programmer at a
                    time, bottom > > up (where > >> I believe it has to happen).
                    > >>
                    > >> As a man who is 'fighting the good fight' it's nice to hear some >
                    > positive > >> feedback (as it sounds like you are as well). The fact
                    that we > > have to fight > >> to get accepted what is proven to work
                    better is it is confounding > > (although > >> I think from 10 years in
                    NYC I should know enough about the > > Psychology of > >> change,
                    politics, etc. to see how it has been misapplied and > > misunderstood).
                    > >>
                    > >> Like someone said "all great men our misunderstood" perhaps It > >
                    should also > >> be "all software engineering advancements are
                    misunderstood (at > > least in > >> most of the east cost, Midwest and
                    South for at 15 years or so, > > except in > >> Academia and the top 5%
                    of the Software Organizations". I come from > >> California (Northern),
                    where the exposure to innovation rate is > > more like > >> 50% and we
                    would never stand for the standards I see every day in > > Financial >
                    >> Services in NYC (that is the only industry I can speak with > >
                    authority on, as > >> that is where I have led on the 'large projects'
                    over $1,000,000) > > although > >> my other experiences have verified my
                    experiences in other > > industries in > >> NYC). Since the day I got
                    here I was shocked. Although my current > > position > >> is a welcome
                    change I must say. But statistically it is in the 3rd > > standard > >>
                    deviation.
                    > >>
                    > >> I think that is how long it took Object-Oriented to > > be
                    'mainstream' (15 > >> years?) via C++ and Smalltalk, no? Design Patterns
                    is running on > > what, 13 > >> years(?) and it is not there. Do you all
                    think 15 years is the > > time frame?
                    > >> 20? I do not mean the leading team of gurus we have in this group, >
                    > but when > >> will your average mid-level programmer schlepping into
                    the office > > every day > >> start finding refactorings into the
                    Adapter pattern (unifying 20 > >> interfaces), and doing Agile modeling on
                    a whiteboard with > > colleagues, > >> perhaps on a refactoring of old
                    C++ or even C code that is being > > moved to C# > >> (my personal
                    favorite language as it is an international standard.
                    > > I just
                    > >> read an article about a 15 million line C# app running on Linux.
                    > > Give it 18
                    > >> months and C# and the FCL will be on every OS (but predictions are >
                    > always > >> dangerous (grin)).
                    > >>
                    > >> This 15 year rule seems not to hold for technologies that are > >
                    tangible and > >> packaged, as they are rapidly accepted and are evolving
                    > > constantly, but it > >> seems to hold for practices like pair
                    programming, TDD, and > > technical design > >> and refactoring using
                    Patterns. We could call it the Doubt, > > Uncertainty, > >>
                    Misunderstanding and Botched-Attempt (DUMB) Principal. <grin>.. My > >>
                    presentation tomorrow (today if you read this Thursday).. I can't > >
                    wait.
                    > >>
                    > >> For my presentation, I just happen to be covering a topic that is >
                    > totally > >> different then what my book is about and this group:
                    Advanced > > Multithreading > >> in C#. So many of you might want to
                    skip this one and come to my > > next one > >> which is tentatively:
                    'Best Software Engineering Practices in .NET > >> Development: How to be
                    Agile, Refactor Code to Design Patterns and > >> Everything In-between'
                    which is based on a paper I am writing for > > various > >> publications
                    and is nothing short of a warning shot over the bow.
                    > > My book is
                    > >> the full scale invasion. Give it 15 years and perhaps it will sell >
                    > <grin>.
                    > >> However you are all incredibly welcome to not only come, but to > >
                    join me for > >> the dinner I have planned afterwards.
                    > >>
                    > >> Kind Regards,
                    > >> Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO > >> agilefactor > >>
                    www.agilefactor.com > >> > >> P.S. Anyone know a good CEO so I can just
                    be 'Chief Technologist'?
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    > > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                    > >
                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    >
                    > ADVERTISEMENT
                    > <image.tiff>
                    > <image.tiff>
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    > . To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
                    >
                    > . To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > . Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                    > Service.
                    >
                    >



                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...

                    Yahoo! Groups Links







                    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make
                    a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
                    Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                    http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/AmOolB/TM
                    --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...

                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • Damon Carr
                    Lenny, I totally agree with you. So I challenge you to help me change this. Join my association and be a teacher, help create the materials, help market the
                    Message 9 of 28 , Oct 2, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Lenny,

                      I totally agree with you. So I challenge you to help me change this. Join my
                      association and be a teacher, help create the materials, help market the
                      certification.

                      One programmer at a time is my motto because we all know management will
                      never get it. They are (as you say) completely clueless on the average. But
                      I slightly disagree with your assertion on developers. OO is how we think
                      naturally as humans so I cannot imagine why you say they will 'never get
                      it'. A 2 year old gets it.

                      Are you in? Or are you just going to complain (and I do not disagree with
                      you). I just refuse to accept it. And like all revolutions this will take
                      some time.


                      Damon Carr, CEO
                      Agilefactor
                      www.agilefactor.com

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Lenny Primak [mailto:lprimak@...]
                      Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 4:57 PM
                      To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [dpsg-nyc] Enterprise SOA Book

                      Dare I say this: the 'average joe shlepping programmer' will never 'get' it.
                      He might read the books, get better, but some people are just not meant to
                      be programmers. The problem with corporate mentality today (but thankfully
                      it's getting better) that they think if you hire 10 mediocre people it will
                      save them money as opposed to hiring 2 good ones.
                      In my experience 2 good people are worth 10-15 'average' programmers.
                      Attrition rate needs to increase, which it will, and this is already
                      happening.
                      The thing that you run into is that management does not yet understand that
                      it's not either quick & dirty or slow & clean, it's only quick & fail and
                      less quick and succeed. They are getting better in realizing this as well,
                      as the more times they make the 'wrong' choice the more projects fail, and
                      they start to see the pattern if they are good, and get fired or quit if
                      they are bad.
                      This is not really about new technology or methodology, it is about
                      politics, change, psychology, etc. I agree completely about that.
                      The same principles that apply to software development, i.e. agile
                      development apply equaly to people. Agile people will get it more.
                      Some people wont.

                      I would like to review the manuscript as well.

                      > Gene,
                      >
                      > Your kind words are appreciated. It's the professionals like yourself
                      > that will fix the problems we all face one programmer at a time,
                      > bottom up (where I believe it has to happen).
                      >
                      > As a man who is 'fighting the good fight' it's nice to hear some
                      > positive feedback (as it sounds like you are as well). The fact that
                      > we have to fight to get accepted what is proven to work better is it
                      > is confounding (although I think from 10 years in NYC I should know
                      > enough about the Psychology of change, politics, etc. to see how it
                      > has been misapplied and misunderstood).
                      >
                      > Like someone said "all great men our misunderstood" perhaps It should
                      > also be "all software engineering advancements are misunderstood (at
                      > least in most of the east cost, Midwest and South for at 15 years or
                      > so, except in Academia and the top 5% of the Software Organizations".
                      > I come from California (Northern), where the exposure to innovation
                      > rate is more like 50% and we would never stand for the standards I see
                      > every day in Financial Services in NYC (that is the only industry I
                      > can speak with authority on, as that is where I have led on the 'large
                      > projects' over $1,000,000) although my other experiences have verified
                      > my experiences in other industries in NYC). Since the day I got here I
                      > was shocked. Although my current position is a welcome change I must
                      > say. But statistically it is in the 3rd standard deviation.
                      >
                      > I think that is how long it took Object-Oriented to be 'mainstream'
                      > (15
                      > years?) via C++ and Smalltalk, no? Design Patterns is running on what,
                      > 13
                      > years(?) and it is not there. Do you all think 15 years is the time frame?
                      > 20? I do not mean the leading team of gurus we have in this group, but
                      > when will your average mid-level programmer schlepping into the
                      > office every day start finding refactorings into the Adapter pattern
                      > (unifying 20 interfaces), and doing Agile modeling on a whiteboard
                      > with colleagues, perhaps on a refactoring of old C++ or even C code
                      > that is being moved to C# (my personal favorite language as it is an
                      > international standard. I just read an article about a 15 million line
                      > C# app running on Linux. Give it
                      > 18
                      > months and C# and the FCL will be on every OS (but predictions are
                      > always dangerous (grin)).
                      >
                      > This 15 year rule seems not to hold for technologies that are tangible
                      > and packaged, as they are rapidly accepted and are evolving
                      > constantly, but it seems to hold for practices like pair programming,
                      > TDD, and technical design and refactoring using Patterns. We could
                      > call it the Doubt, Uncertainty, Misunderstanding and Botched-Attempt
                      > (DUMB) Principal. <grin>.. My presentation tomorrow (today if you read
                      > this Thursday).. I can't wait.
                      >
                      > For my presentation, I just happen to be covering a topic that is
                      > totally different then what my book is about and this group: Advanced
                      > Multithreading in C#. So many of you might want to skip this one and
                      > come to my next one which is tentatively: 'Best Software Engineering
                      > Practices in .NET
                      > Development: How to be Agile, Refactor Code to Design Patterns and
                      > Everything In-between' which is based on a paper I am writing for
                      > various publications and is nothing short of a warning shot over the
                      > bow. My book is the full scale invasion. Give it 15 years and perhaps
                      > it will sell <grin>.
                      > However you are all incredibly welcome to not only come, but to join
                      > me for the dinner I have planned afterwards.
                      >
                      > Kind Regards,
                      > Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO agilefactor www.agilefactor.com
                      >
                      > P.S. Anyone know a good CEO so I can just be 'Chief Technologist'?
                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Gene Volovich [mailto:gene@...]
                      > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 8:45 AM
                      > To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Enterprise SOA Book
                      >
                      > We dpsg-ers here know Joshua well, and we're planning to do his book
                      > in the coming months - I totally agree about the "smells" and your
                      > other comments.
                      > Sounds like your talk would be interesting for folks here to go to!
                      > Thanks
                      > for bringing it to our attention.
                      >
                      > Gene
                      >
                      >
                      > On Sep 28, 2004, at 11:30 PM, Damon Carr wrote:
                      >
                      >>
                      >> Gene,
                      >>
                      >> It sounds like you are tackling this from a 'top-down' perspective
                      >> but I can say incredibly good things about the new book called
                      >> 'Refactoring to Patterns' by Joshua Kerievsky which is more of a
                      >> 'bottom-up'
                      >> approach. I
                      >> know in my own teaching it has helped tremendously, just as the
                      >> original Fowler book was so practical. Now I have people saying 'I
                      >> get it' far sooner then when I would teach the patterns as if they
                      >> were new designs to implement.
                      >>
                      >> It still astounds me how the average corporate developer has no idea
                      >> about 'smells' and is blind to them (and forget about patterns - I
                      >> can only hire one out of 100 people that I talk to. It is absolutely
                      >> a disaster in my opinion). Your group is fantastic and exactly what
                      >> we need more of.
                      >>
                      >> For corporate America today it's all about 'code and fix', the old
                      >> SEI level
                      >> 1 (if your lucky) in an endless cycle of defects and a backlog of
                      >> bugs, and fixing the bugs just causes more to emerge (as there is no
                      >> regression testing and the system and OF COURSE not the Unit level).
                      >> Trying to teach entrenched developers how to do TDD is like talking
                      >> to a brick wall.
                      >>
                      >> My book (called 'agilefactor : The Next Evolution in Agile Software
                      >> Development' is due around March 2005. I cover refactoring to
                      >> patterns in detail as part of an Agile Iterative (2 week fixed is my
                      >> recommendation)
                      >> framework. I also keep metrics on the refactorings occurring via a
                      >> web-based SDLC tool that understands Iterations, Stories, etc. There
                      >> are probably 10 other big ideas that have never been done in book
                      >> format with Agile, but one of the main ones is 'Refactoring to
                      >> Patterns' as you move through iterations and the fact that you
                      >> probably will not get the cost curve promised, without patterns.
                      >>
                      >> Anyway, if anyone is interested I'm happy to talk about it. I'm
                      >> certainly excited as my last firm was voted in the top three by
                      >> Forrester Research in Europe on Technology for our space (and I was
                      >> CTO). My new firm is taking off faster then I can find people so I
                      >> have that terrible decision - compromise on staff or experienced
                      >> slowed growth. So far I have chosen the later given what I have seen
                      >> some top firms turn in to. Also I am speaking this Thursday at 6PM
                      >> for the New York Software Industry Association if anyone would like
                      >> to come (on the 30th of September). I will try to get you discounted
                      >> or free admission if you let me know you are coming (any member of
                      >> this group).
                      >>
                      >> Kind Regards,
                      >> Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO agilefactor
                      >> www.agilefactor.com
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> -----Original Message-----
                      >> From: Gene Volovich [mailto:gene@...]
                      >> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 12:31 PM
                      >> To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                      >> Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Enterprise SOA Book
                      >>
                      >> James,
                      >>
                      >> I'd be interested in looking at your manuscript. I'm currently
                      >> organizing one of the dpsg-nyc groups, that is looking at enterprise
                      >> architecture, patterns, development methodologies, etc. We've been
                      >> looking some similar books such as Fowler's Patterns of EAA,
                      >> Martin's Agile Software Development, Enterprise Integration Patterns
                      >> (coming up next), etc. If possible, with your permission we could
                      >> look at some of the chapters in our group, as well, if they dovetail
                      >> with what we are discussing at the time. Thanks very much,
                      >>
                      >> Gene Volovich
                      >>
                      >> On Sep 28, 2004, at 10:01 AM, James McGovern wrote:
                      >>
                      >> >
                      >> > I am the lead author for an upcoming book entitled: Enterprise
                      >> SOA. I > am looking for ten individuals to review a portion of the
                      >> manuscript > and provide timely feedback. If you are knowledgable
                      >> in registries, > event driven architecture or security, please do
                      >> not hesitate to > contact me.
                      >> >
                      >> > NOTE: My email spam filters deletes all replies from free email
                      >> > services such as Yahoo, Hotmail, etc so reply back using work email.
                      >> >
                      >> > Cheers
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >> > James McGovern
                      >> > Number Two Blogger on the Internet >
                      >> http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/eai/leadership
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                      >> > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      >> >
                      >> > ADVERTISEMENT
                      >> > <image.tiff>
                      >> > <image.tiff>
                      >> >
                      >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >> >
                      >> > . To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
                      >> >
                      >> > . To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      >> > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >> >
                      >> > . Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                      >> Terms of
                      >>
                      >> > Service.
                      >> >
                      >> >
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      >> --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo!
                      >> Companion Toolbar.
                      >> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                      >> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/AmOolB/TM
                      >>
                      >> --------------------------------------------------------------------~
                      >> -
                      >> >
                      >>
                      >> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                      >> dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                      >>
                      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                      >> dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      >>
                      >> ADVERTISEMENT
                      >> <image.tiff>
                      >> <image.tiff>
                      >>
                      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >>
                      >> . To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
                      >>
                      >> . To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      >> dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >>
                      >> . Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                      >
                      >> Service.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                      > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                      > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >



                      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make
                      a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
                      Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                      http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/AmOolB/TM
                      --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...

                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • Damon Carr
                      Lenny, My forthcoming book will help change that even more (but I do not think you have read many of the books that are moving us towards a true scientific
                      Message 10 of 28 , Oct 3, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Lenny,

                        My forthcoming book will help change that even more (but I do not think you
                        have read many of the books that are moving us towards a true scientific
                        engineering discipline with quantifiable measurements. Fowler's Refactoring
                        actually helps move us MORE towards science, as do the many 'word
                        abstractions' as I call them where a word or phrase is created to describe a
                        commonly occurring observable software element (Be it a pattern,
                        refactoring, or Enterprise Architecture element) not away from it.

                        I am releasing an article (I just finished it tonight) within the next 2
                        weeks describing the 'Carr Agility Ratio (CAR)' a quantitative measure of an
                        object-oriented (design or implementation)'s ability to respond to change or
                        be 'Agile'. Given exponentially improving hardware the true quality of a
                        design will be agility not optimization of code execution moving forward
                        (with some exceptions of course). It was 15 years in the making to reach the
                        truths I am proving in practice through quantitative measurement. I will
                        send the article to this group when it is published and you can tell me if
                        it is more art or science.

                        OO Designs with a low CAR are far more able to implement changes in less
                        time, with less cost and higher quality then designs with a high CAR. You
                        want a CAR of less then one. It is all a matter of impact analysis really
                        (although my rather formal paper takes 7 pages to explain only one of
                        probably 50 innovations in the book. The article is a teaser but something
                        you can start to use on your Agile Process based projects immediately
                        without waiting for the book. I prove scientifically that Design Patterns
                        are required to optimize the economics of software development. I prove it
                        absolutely and without much room for debate, as Darwin did (and I do not
                        have delusions of grandeur that I am even 1/100th the man Charles Darwin
                        was).

                        We must evolve away from art, or we will never have a true discipline. I
                        recommend you read Steve McConnell's new book 'Professional Software
                        Development'.

                        Art in software is often a rogue, but very smart developer being clever and
                        writing code others cannot understand and refusing to work in a pair. This
                        is the antithesis of what our profession needs as we know from the failure
                        rates published my many organization. You have roughly a 5% chance of
                        success across all dimensions when a custom software project is started.

                        Kind regards,
                        Damon Carr, Chief Technologist
                        Agilefactor
                        www.agilefactor.com


                        Author of the forthcoming book 'agilefactor : The Next Generation of Agile
                        Software Development'



                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Lenny Primak [mailto:lprimak@...]
                        Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 4:07 PM
                        To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book

                        OO programming is more of an art then a sciense, that's why it's so
                        difficult to deliver quantitatively good code. That's why we use terms like
                        "smells", and one design is not necessarily right or wrong. That's why
                        working systems seem to be "alive".
                        That's when you know stuff works when it's supple and feels adaptive with
                        change, and it susprises you in a good way.

                        Rim, Mark wrote:

                        >I'm relatively inexperienced with domain modelling. The models I make
                        >suck butt. But I stick to it because I really see value in Eric Evan's
                        >ubiquitous language.
                        >
                        >Luckily, I've gotten quite disciplined with TDD which tends to clean up
                        >most of the glaring errors in design. I've learned how to recognize
                        >various code smells. I've also internalized a lot of design patterns
                        >and refactoring techniques which help address many of the code smells.
                        >The unit tests make the refactoring possible in the first place. I keep
                        >on the lookout for incongruencies between the domain and my code. Over
                        >time this butt-sucking design gets less sucky. Often it gets quite
                        bearable.
                        >
                        >I still tend to have at least one "gummy muck" object. An object which
                        >has too many responsibilities, or gets assigned all responsiblities I
                        >don't know what to do with. Perhaps one day I'll learn some techniques
                        >for refactoring out gummy mucks.
                        >
                        >I get the feeling that making good object models is tough for even
                        >experienced OO folks. Perhaps that's why this domain modelling thing is
                        >so unpopular among programmers. polymorphism can be explained in few
                        >minutes. domain modelling is difficult to explain for even object
                        >gurus. And us busy programmers don't have time for vague theories that take
                        more than a few minutes.
                        >
                        >--Choy
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >>-----Original Message-----
                        >>From: Sathyanarayanan Srinivasan [mailto:cssathya@...]
                        >>Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 9:45 AM
                        >>To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                        >>Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>My take is that people still don't fully understand how to do OO using
                        >>OO languages. I would probably think that the major reason for this is
                        >>the rush by companies to market their product, thereby reducing the
                        >>timeline to a minimum. They want programs to be written in the latest
                        >>technologies because it's cool (i.e., more marketable), but don't
                        >>bother to educate or give time to developers to educate themselves. As
                        >>a result, the developers, in their hurry to meet their deadlines, fall
                        >>back to what they already know - procedural programming.
                        >>
                        >>I agree with Gene in that this is a grass-roots effort. You cannot
                        >>expect things to change all of a sudden. But as more and more colleges
                        >>teach OO in Software courses and as more and more professionals who
                        >>understand and work with people who don't, I believe the conversion
                        >>will take place. It will definitely be painful (ask any guy who
                        >>converted a legacy app to a new app), but it will happen nevertheless.
                        >>
                        >>I recently created a presentation based on our discussions in the
                        >>group on principles. A friend of mine gave the presentation to his
                        >>group (of around 40-50), who are involved in a large enterprise (J2EE)
                        >>software. We made these observations.
                        >>
                        >>1. Most of the attendees were software professionals with at least 3
                        >>years of experience.
                        >>2. Most of them knew Java or closely related OO language.
                        >>3. Almost none of them had heard of the 5 principles explained in
                        >>Martin's book.
                        >>4. Almost all of them were interested and enthusiastic at the end on
                        >>hearing the principles, which was evident from insightful questions
                        >>that they asked at the end. In fact, one person pointed out a place in
                        >>their existing design, which potentially violated LSP!
                        >>
                        >>From this, I believe that hope is definitely there.
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>"It is easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of computers by
                        >>the sense of accomplishment you get from getting them to run at all."
                        >>
                        >>- Douglas Adams
                        >>http://www.cssathya.com
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>----Original Message Follows----
                        >>From: Gene Volovich <gene@...>
                        >>Reply-To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                        >>To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                        >>Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
                        >>Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:32:38 -0400
                        >>
                        >>I'm not so sure about that - I think OO, and I do mean an OO way of
                        >>thinking about the problem domain, IS becoming standard because it is
                        >>a natural way to think about the domain when it comes to (especially
                        >>large) business and enterprise systems, the majority of software
                        >>projects these days. If in all the schools and on the job training
                        >>people are taught to think in terms of objects, I don't see why they
                        >>wouldn't adopt that way of thinking. It's true that you see a lot of
                        >>procedural code written in OO languages, but I think for larger
                        >>projects, and especially using DDD, it is so natural to adopt an OO
                        >>view of the domain that people will do so, and it won't take a genius
                        >>to do it.
                        >>
                        >>Gene
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>On Oct 1, 2004, at 1:22 AM, Lenny Primak wrote:
                        >>
                        >> > I agree with that first sentence wholeheartedly.
                        >> > Few people know what polymorphism truly is, let alone use and
                        >> > develop a proper object model. OO is certainly not mainstream,
                        >> > and will not be in at least 100 years, if ever.
                        >> >
                        >> > On Sep 30, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Jim Espaillat wrote:
                        >> >
                        >> > > I disagree that OO is mainstream. Certainly OO LANGUAGES are >
                        >> > mainstream, but as we all know, using an OO language does not >
                        >> > automatically cause you to create OO code. Ask the typical >
                        >> > programmer if he knows OO, and he'll typically respond with >
                        >> > something like, "Yes, I know OO, I work in Java", as if
                        >>they were
                        >> > > one and the same. (This is not, of course, limited to
                        >>just Java,
                        >> > > but also C++, C#, PowerBuilder, and any other
                        >>mainstream OO language
                        >> > > you care to think of.) Yet you look at what they're
                        >>producing, and
                        >> > > 9 times out of 10 it's procedural code wrapped inside a
                        >>few objects.
                        >> > >
                        >> > > Unfortunately, I don't think OO will ever become mainstream. I
                        >> > > consider myself a pretty smart guy, and I didn't get it
                        >>at first.
                        >> > > Yes you need smarts, but you also need to have enough
                        >>experience to
                        >> > > recognize A) how the paradigm is different, and B) that it's a
                        >> > > better one.
                        >> > >
                        >> > > I haven't seen any survey done on this (nor would it be
                        >>accurate,
                        >> > > since so many think they're doing OO when they're
                        >>really not), but
                        >> > > if I had to take an educated guess, I would say about
                        >>10 percent of
                        >> > > developers actually understand OO. Making things worse, in my
                        >> > > experience I've always had to co-exist with other
                        >>developers on a
                        >> > > project, so that even if I wanted to build things the
                        >>right way, it
                        >> > > was often an accomplishment just to get them to not put business
                        >> > > logic in the GUI, never mind having any sort of a true
                        >>object model.
                        >> > >
                        >> > > Meanwhile design patterns, as we know them at least, are useless
                        >> > > without an OO underpinning, so even if we concede that
                        >>half the true
                        >> > > OO developers know about patterns, that's still only 5
                        >>percent of
                        >> > > the universe. And I may be estimating high; as you
                        >>point out, you
                        >> > > only find 1 percent of developers suitable for hiring.
                        >> > >
                        >> > > I recently joined this group, partly to learn
                        >>something, but also
                        >> > > partly to not feel quite so alone in this effort. I
                        >>truly wish I
                        >> > > didn't have to work in an enviromnent where I have to maintain
                        >> > > programs that don't work well, are written horribly, and yet I'm
                        >> > > constrained by managers who won't let me change something just >
                        >> > because I don't like it ("if it ain't broke...", but how do you >
                        >> > convince them it IS broken?).
                        >> > >
                        >> > > --
                        >> > > Jim Espaillat
                        >> > > Delphinus Consulting, Inc.
                        >> > > www.delphinusinc.com
                        >> > >
                        >> > > PS. I'm not a .NET guy (PB actually), but I'll
                        >>definitely take you
                        >> > > up on the next talk. One of the best parts about thinking at a
                        >> > > sufficiently high level of abstraction is that the
                        >>language becomes
                        >> > > secondary. Good thing, too; I've yet to see any good
                        >>OO books come
                        >> > > out with PB examples...
                        >> > >
                        >> > >
                        >> > > --- In dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com, "Damon Carr"
                        >><damon@a...> wrote:
                        >> > >>
                        >> > >> Gene,
                        >> > >>
                        >> > >> Your kind words are appreciated. It's the professionals like >
                        >> > yourself that >> will fix the problems we all face one programmer
                        >> > at a
                        >>time, bottom
                        >> > > up (where
                        >> > >> I believe it has to happen).
                        >> > >>
                        >> > >> As a man who is 'fighting the good fight' it's nice to
                        >>hear some
                        >> > > positive
                        >> > >> feedback (as it sounds like you are as well). The fact that we
                        >> > > have to fight >> to get accepted what is proven to work better
                        >> > is it is
                        >>confounding
                        >> > > (although
                        >> > >> I think from 10 years in NYC I should know enough about the >
                        >> > Psychology of >> change, politics, etc. to see how it has been
                        >> > misapplied and > misunderstood).
                        >> > >>
                        >> > >> Like someone said "all great men our misunderstood" perhaps It
                        >> > > should also >> be "all software engineering advancements are
                        >> > misunderstood (at > least in >> most of the east cost, Midwest
                        >> > and South for at 15 years or so, > except in >> Academia and the
                        >> > top 5% of the Software
                        >>Organizations". I come from
                        >> > >> California (Northern), where the exposure to innovation rate is
                        >> > > more like >> 50% and we would never stand for the standards I
                        >> > see
                        >>every day in
                        >> > > Financial
                        >> > >> Services in NYC (that is the only industry I can speak with >
                        >> > authority on, as >> that is where I have led on the 'large
                        >> > projects' over
                        >>$1,000,000)
                        >> > > although
                        >> > >> my other experiences have verified my experiences in other >
                        >> > industries in >> NYC). Since the day I got here I was shocked.
                        >> > Although
                        >>my current
                        >> > > position
                        >> > >> is a welcome change I must say. But statistically it
                        >>is in the 3rd
                        >> > > standard
                        >> > >> deviation.
                        >> > >>
                        >> > >> I think that is how long it took Object-Oriented to > be
                        >> > 'mainstream' (15 >> years?) via C++ and Smalltalk, no? Design
                        >> > Patterns is
                        >>running on
                        >> > > what, 13
                        >> > >> years(?) and it is not there. Do you all think 15 years is the
                        >> > > time frame?
                        >> > >> 20? I do not mean the leading team of gurus we have in
                        >>this group,
                        >> > > but when
                        >> > >> will your average mid-level programmer schlepping
                        >>into the office
                        >> > > every day
                        >> > >> start finding refactorings into the Adapter pattern
                        >>(unifying 20
                        >> > >> interfaces), and doing Agile modeling on a whiteboard with >
                        >> > colleagues, >> perhaps on a refactoring of old C++ or even C code
                        >>that is being
                        >> > > moved to C#
                        >> > >> (my personal favorite language as it is an
                        >>international standard.
                        >> > > I just
                        >> > >> read an article about a 15 million line C# app running
                        >>on Linux.
                        >> > > Give it 18
                        >> > >> months and C# and the FCL will be on every OS (but
                        >>predictions are
                        >> > > always
                        >> > >> dangerous (grin)).
                        >> > >>
                        >> > >> This 15 year rule seems not to hold for technologies that are
                        >> > > tangible and >> packaged, as they are rapidly accepted and are
                        >> > evolving > constantly, but it >> seems to hold for practices like
                        >> > pair programming, TDD, and > technical design >> and refactoring
                        >> > using Patterns. We could call it the Doubt, > Uncertainty, >>
                        >> > Misunderstanding and Botched-Attempt (DUMB) Principal.
                        >><grin>.. My
                        >> > >> presentation tomorrow (today if you read this
                        >>Thursday).. I can't
                        >> > > wait.
                        >> > >>
                        >> > >> For my presentation, I just happen to be covering a
                        >>topic that is
                        >> > > totally
                        >> > >> different then what my book is about and this group: Advanced
                        >> > > Multithreading >> in C#. So many of you might want to skip this
                        >> > one and
                        >>come to my
                        >> > > next one
                        >> > >> which is tentatively: 'Best Software Engineering
                        >>Practices in .NET
                        >> > >> Development: How to be Agile, Refactor Code to Design
                        >>Patterns and
                        >> > >> Everything In-between' which is based on a paper I am
                        >>writing for
                        >> > > various
                        >> > >> publications and is nothing short of a warning shot
                        >>over the bow.
                        >> > > My book is
                        >> > >> the full scale invasion. Give it 15 years and perhaps
                        >>it will sell
                        >> > > <grin>.
                        >> > >> However you are all incredibly welcome to not only come, but to
                        >> > > join me for >> the dinner I have planned afterwards.
                        >> > >>
                        >> > >> Kind Regards,
                        >> > >> Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO >> agilefactor >>
                        >> > www.agilefactor.com >> >> P.S. Anyone know a good CEO so I can
                        >> > just be 'Chief
                        >>Technologist'?
                        >> > >
                        >> > >
                        >> > >
                        >> > >
                        >> > >
                        >> > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                        >> > > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@... > > Yahoo! Groups Links > >
                        >> > > > >
                        >> >
                        >> >
                        >> >
                        >> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                        >> > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                        >> >
                        >> >
                        >> >
                        >> >
                        >> >
                        >> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        >> >
                        >> > ADVERTISEMENT
                        >> > <image.tiff>
                        >> > <image.tiff>
                        >> >
                        >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >> >
                        >> > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
                        >> >
                        >> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        >> > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >> >
                        >> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                        >>Yahoo! Terms of
                        >> > Service.
                        >> >
                        >> >
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                        >>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                        >>
                        >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        >>--------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo!
                        >>Companion Toolbar.
                        >>Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                        >>http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/AmOolB/TM
                        >>--------------------------------------------------------------
                        >>------~->
                        >>
                        >>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                        >>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                        >>
                        >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>
                        >
                        >=======================================================================
                        >======= This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If
                        >you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If
                        >this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality
                        >or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent
                        >through its network.
                        >Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until
                        >they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be
                        secure.
                        >=======================================================================
                        >=======
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                        >dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                        >
                        >Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >



                        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make
                        a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
                        Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                        http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/AmOolB/TM
                        --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...

                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      • Jim Espaillat
                        Call it semantic nitpicking, if you will, but doesn t the phrase high Agility Ratio imply high agility ? Perhaps you should invert your ratio. -- Jim
                        Message 11 of 28 , Oct 4, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Call it semantic nitpicking, if you will, but doesn't the
                          phrase "high Agility Ratio" imply "high agility"? Perhaps you
                          should invert your ratio.

                          --
                          Jim Espaillat
                          Delphinus Consulting, Inc.
                          www.delphinusinc.com

                          --- In dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com, "Damon Carr" <damon@a...> wrote:
                          >
                          > OO Designs with a low CAR are far more able to implement changes
                          in less
                          > time, with less cost and higher quality then designs with a high
                          CAR.
                        • Lenny Primak
                          Thanks for the offer, but I can t really take any new responsibilities right now, in fact i need to take on less responsibility. But, what I can do a little
                          Message 12 of 28 , Oct 4, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thanks for the offer, but I can't really take any new responsibilities
                            right now, in fact
                            i need to take on less responsibility. But, what I can do a little
                            thing here and there.
                            Also, revolutions have to come from top and bottom, but most bottom-up
                            revolutions
                            usually get crushed. We need to work from both top and bottom to get
                            the point.
                            We can't tolerate bad management that does not know about agile, XP, etc.
                            We need to fire management that doesn't get it and hire management that
                            does.
                            We also need to teach, in a grass-roots manner, one programmer at a time
                            the art of OO design. It takes a long time, few people will learn, but
                            the ones
                            who don't know, with the help of good management, will go away by attrition,
                            in time.

                            Damon Carr wrote:

                            >Lenny,
                            >
                            >I totally agree with you. So I challenge you to help me change this. Join my
                            >association and be a teacher, help create the materials, help market the
                            >certification.
                            >
                            >One programmer at a time is my motto because we all know management will
                            >never get it. They are (as you say) completely clueless on the average. But
                            >I slightly disagree with your assertion on developers. OO is how we think
                            >naturally as humans so I cannot imagine why you say they will 'never get
                            >it'. A 2 year old gets it.
                            >
                            >Are you in? Or are you just going to complain (and I do not disagree with
                            >you). I just refuse to accept it. And like all revolutions this will take
                            >some time.
                            >
                            >
                            >Damon Carr, CEO
                            >Agilefactor
                            >www.agilefactor.com
                            >
                            >-----Original Message-----
                            >From: Lenny Primak [mailto:lprimak@...]
                            >Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 4:57 PM
                            >To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                            >Subject: RE: [dpsg-nyc] Enterprise SOA Book
                            >
                            >Dare I say this: the 'average joe shlepping programmer' will never 'get' it.
                            >He might read the books, get better, but some people are just not meant to
                            >be programmers. The problem with corporate mentality today (but thankfully
                            >it's getting better) that they think if you hire 10 mediocre people it will
                            >save them money as opposed to hiring 2 good ones.
                            >In my experience 2 good people are worth 10-15 'average' programmers.
                            >Attrition rate needs to increase, which it will, and this is already
                            >happening.
                            >The thing that you run into is that management does not yet understand that
                            >it's not either quick & dirty or slow & clean, it's only quick & fail and
                            >less quick and succeed. They are getting better in realizing this as well,
                            >as the more times they make the 'wrong' choice the more projects fail, and
                            >they start to see the pattern if they are good, and get fired or quit if
                            >they are bad.
                            >This is not really about new technology or methodology, it is about
                            >politics, change, psychology, etc. I agree completely about that.
                            >The same principles that apply to software development, i.e. agile
                            >development apply equaly to people. Agile people will get it more.
                            >Some people wont.
                            >
                            >I would like to review the manuscript as well.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >>Gene,
                            >>
                            >>Your kind words are appreciated. It's the professionals like yourself
                            >>that will fix the problems we all face one programmer at a time,
                            >>bottom up (where I believe it has to happen).
                            >>
                            >>As a man who is 'fighting the good fight' it's nice to hear some
                            >>positive feedback (as it sounds like you are as well). The fact that
                            >>we have to fight to get accepted what is proven to work better is it
                            >>is confounding (although I think from 10 years in NYC I should know
                            >>enough about the Psychology of change, politics, etc. to see how it
                            >>has been misapplied and misunderstood).
                            >>
                            >>Like someone said "all great men our misunderstood" perhaps It should
                            >>also be "all software engineering advancements are misunderstood (at
                            >>least in most of the east cost, Midwest and South for at 15 years or
                            >>so, except in Academia and the top 5% of the Software Organizations".
                            >>I come from California (Northern), where the exposure to innovation
                            >>rate is more like 50% and we would never stand for the standards I see
                            >>every day in Financial Services in NYC (that is the only industry I
                            >>can speak with authority on, as that is where I have led on the 'large
                            >>projects' over $1,000,000) although my other experiences have verified
                            >>my experiences in other industries in NYC). Since the day I got here I
                            >>was shocked. Although my current position is a welcome change I must
                            >>say. But statistically it is in the 3rd standard deviation.
                            >>
                            >>I think that is how long it took Object-Oriented to be 'mainstream'
                            >>(15
                            >>years?) via C++ and Smalltalk, no? Design Patterns is running on what,
                            >>13
                            >>years(?) and it is not there. Do you all think 15 years is the time frame?
                            >>20? I do not mean the leading team of gurus we have in this group, but
                            >>when will your average mid-level programmer schlepping into the
                            >>office every day start finding refactorings into the Adapter pattern
                            >>(unifying 20 interfaces), and doing Agile modeling on a whiteboard
                            >>with colleagues, perhaps on a refactoring of old C++ or even C code
                            >>that is being moved to C# (my personal favorite language as it is an
                            >>international standard. I just read an article about a 15 million line
                            >>C# app running on Linux. Give it
                            >>18
                            >>months and C# and the FCL will be on every OS (but predictions are
                            >>always dangerous (grin)).
                            >>
                            >>This 15 year rule seems not to hold for technologies that are tangible
                            >>and packaged, as they are rapidly accepted and are evolving
                            >>constantly, but it seems to hold for practices like pair programming,
                            >>TDD, and technical design and refactoring using Patterns. We could
                            >>call it the Doubt, Uncertainty, Misunderstanding and Botched-Attempt
                            >>(DUMB) Principal. <grin>.. My presentation tomorrow (today if you read
                            >>this Thursday).. I can't wait.
                            >>
                            >>For my presentation, I just happen to be covering a topic that is
                            >>totally different then what my book is about and this group: Advanced
                            >>Multithreading in C#. So many of you might want to skip this one and
                            >>come to my next one which is tentatively: 'Best Software Engineering
                            >>Practices in .NET
                            >>Development: How to be Agile, Refactor Code to Design Patterns and
                            >>Everything In-between' which is based on a paper I am writing for
                            >>various publications and is nothing short of a warning shot over the
                            >>bow. My book is the full scale invasion. Give it 15 years and perhaps
                            >>it will sell <grin>.
                            >>However you are all incredibly welcome to not only come, but to join
                            >>me for the dinner I have planned afterwards.
                            >>
                            >>Kind Regards,
                            >>Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO agilefactor www.agilefactor.com
                            >>
                            >>P.S. Anyone know a good CEO so I can just be 'Chief Technologist'?
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>-----Original Message-----
                            >>From: Gene Volovich [mailto:gene@...]
                            >>Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 8:45 AM
                            >>To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                            >>Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Enterprise SOA Book
                            >>
                            >>We dpsg-ers here know Joshua well, and we're planning to do his book
                            >>in the coming months - I totally agree about the "smells" and your
                            >>other comments.
                            >>Sounds like your talk would be interesting for folks here to go to!
                            >>Thanks
                            >>for bringing it to our attention.
                            >>
                            >>Gene
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>On Sep 28, 2004, at 11:30 PM, Damon Carr wrote:
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>> Gene,
                            >>>
                            >>> It sounds like you are tackling this from a 'top-down' perspective
                            >>>but I can say incredibly good things about the new book called
                            >>>'Refactoring to Patterns' by Joshua Kerievsky which is more of a
                            >>>'bottom-up'
                            >>>approach. I
                            >>> know in my own teaching it has helped tremendously, just as the
                            >>>original Fowler book was so practical. Now I have people saying 'I
                            >>>get it' far sooner then when I would teach the patterns as if they
                            >>>were new designs to implement.
                            >>>
                            >>> It still astounds me how the average corporate developer has no idea
                            >>>about 'smells' and is blind to them (and forget about patterns - I
                            >>>can only hire one out of 100 people that I talk to. It is absolutely
                            >>>a disaster in my opinion). Your group is fantastic and exactly what
                            >>>we need more of.
                            >>>
                            >>> For corporate America today it's all about 'code and fix', the old
                            >>>SEI level
                            >>> 1 (if your lucky) in an endless cycle of defects and a backlog of
                            >>>bugs, and fixing the bugs just causes more to emerge (as there is no
                            >>>regression testing and the system and OF COURSE not the Unit level).
                            >>>Trying to teach entrenched developers how to do TDD is like talking
                            >>>to a brick wall.
                            >>>
                            >>> My book (called 'agilefactor : The Next Evolution in Agile Software
                            >>>Development' is due around March 2005. I cover refactoring to
                            >>>patterns in detail as part of an Agile Iterative (2 week fixed is my
                            >>>recommendation)
                            >>> framework. I also keep metrics on the refactorings occurring via a
                            >>>web-based SDLC tool that understands Iterations, Stories, etc. There
                            >>>are probably 10 other big ideas that have never been done in book
                            >>>format with Agile, but one of the main ones is 'Refactoring to
                            >>>Patterns' as you move through iterations and the fact that you
                            >>>probably will not get the cost curve promised, without patterns.
                            >>>
                            >>> Anyway, if anyone is interested I'm happy to talk about it. I'm
                            >>>certainly excited as my last firm was voted in the top three by
                            >>>Forrester Research in Europe on Technology for our space (and I was
                            >>>CTO). My new firm is taking off faster then I can find people so I
                            >>>have that terrible decision - compromise on staff or experienced
                            >>>slowed growth. So far I have chosen the later given what I have seen
                            >>>some top firms turn in to. Also I am speaking this Thursday at 6PM
                            >>>for the New York Software Industry Association if anyone would like
                            >>>to come (on the 30th of September). I will try to get you discounted
                            >>>or free admission if you let me know you are coming (any member of
                            >>>this group).
                            >>>
                            >>> Kind Regards,
                            >>> Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO agilefactor
                            >>>www.agilefactor.com
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>> -----Original Message-----
                            >>> From: Gene Volovich [mailto:gene@...]
                            >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 12:31 PM
                            >>> To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                            >>> Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Enterprise SOA Book
                            >>>
                            >>> James,
                            >>>
                            >>> I'd be interested in looking at your manuscript. I'm currently
                            >>>organizing one of the dpsg-nyc groups, that is looking at enterprise
                            >>>architecture, patterns, development methodologies, etc. We've been
                            >>>looking some similar books such as Fowler's Patterns of EAA,
                            >>>Martin's Agile Software Development, Enterprise Integration Patterns
                            >>>(coming up next), etc. If possible, with your permission we could
                            >>>look at some of the chapters in our group, as well, if they dovetail
                            >>>with what we are discussing at the time. Thanks very much,
                            >>>
                            >>> Gene Volovich
                            >>>
                            >>> On Sep 28, 2004, at 10:01 AM, James McGovern wrote:
                            >>>
                            >>> >
                            >>> > I am the lead author for an upcoming book entitled: Enterprise
                            >>>SOA. I > am looking for ten individuals to review a portion of the
                            >>>manuscript > and provide timely feedback. If you are knowledgable
                            >>>in registries, > event driven architecture or security, please do
                            >>>not hesitate to > contact me.
                            >>> >
                            >>> > NOTE: My email spam filters deletes all replies from free email
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>>services such as Yahoo, Hotmail, etc so reply back using work email.
                            >>>>
                            >>>>
                            >>> >
                            >>> > Cheers
                            >>> >
                            >>> >
                            >>> > James McGovern
                            >>> > Number Two Blogger on the Internet >
                            >>>http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/eai/leadership
                            >>> >
                            >>> >
                            >>> >
                            >>> >
                            >>> >
                            >>> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                            >>> > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                            >>> >
                            >>> >
                            >>> >
                            >>> >
                            >>> >
                            >>> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            >>> >
                            >>> > ADVERTISEMENT
                            >>> > <image.tiff>
                            >>> > <image.tiff>
                            >>> >
                            >>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >>> >
                            >>> > . To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            >>> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
                            >>> >
                            >>> > . To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            >>> > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >>> >
                            >>> > . Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
                            >>>Terms of
                            >>>
                            >>> > Service.
                            >>> >
                            >>> >
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            >>>--------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo!
                            >>>Companion Toolbar.
                            >>> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                            >>>http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/AmOolB/TM
                            >>>
                            >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------~
                            >>>-
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                            >>>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                            >>>
                            >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                            >>>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                            >>>
                            >>>ADVERTISEMENT
                            >>><image.tiff>
                            >>><image.tiff>
                            >>>
                            >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >>>
                            >>> . To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            >>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
                            >>>
                            >>> . To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            >>>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >>>
                            >>> . Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>Service.
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>
                            >>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                            >>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                            >>
                            >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                            >>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                            >>
                            >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                          • Lenny Primak
                            I agree with you that the art part should be minimized, and quantitative analysis is great, and it will help a lot with people s understanding of OO design
                            Message 13 of 28 , Oct 4, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I agree with you that the 'art' part should be minimized, and
                              quantitative analysis
                              is great, and it will help a lot with people's understanding of OO
                              design and coding.
                              But just like psychology, it's unrealistic to think that there is a
                              silver bullet that will
                              take away the art part completely. In fact, I don't think it can be
                              done in principal,
                              even in a perfect world. Everybody views the same system differently,
                              and imagines
                              them in a different, equally valid OO models, but they can be vastly
                              different,
                              and incompatible. But, I would rather wind up with one of them than
                              procedural spaghetti code!

                              Damon Carr wrote:

                              >Lenny,
                              >
                              >My forthcoming book will help change that even more (but I do not think you
                              >have read many of the books that are moving us towards a true scientific
                              >engineering discipline with quantifiable measurements. Fowler's Refactoring
                              >actually helps move us MORE towards science, as do the many 'word
                              >abstractions' as I call them where a word or phrase is created to describe a
                              >commonly occurring observable software element (Be it a pattern,
                              >refactoring, or Enterprise Architecture element) not away from it.
                              >
                              >I am releasing an article (I just finished it tonight) within the next 2
                              >weeks describing the 'Carr Agility Ratio (CAR)' a quantitative measure of an
                              >object-oriented (design or implementation)'s ability to respond to change or
                              >be 'Agile'. Given exponentially improving hardware the true quality of a
                              >design will be agility not optimization of code execution moving forward
                              >(with some exceptions of course). It was 15 years in the making to reach the
                              >truths I am proving in practice through quantitative measurement. I will
                              >send the article to this group when it is published and you can tell me if
                              >it is more art or science.
                              >
                              >OO Designs with a low CAR are far more able to implement changes in less
                              >time, with less cost and higher quality then designs with a high CAR. You
                              >want a CAR of less then one. It is all a matter of impact analysis really
                              >(although my rather formal paper takes 7 pages to explain only one of
                              >probably 50 innovations in the book. The article is a teaser but something
                              >you can start to use on your Agile Process based projects immediately
                              >without waiting for the book. I prove scientifically that Design Patterns
                              >are required to optimize the economics of software development. I prove it
                              >absolutely and without much room for debate, as Darwin did (and I do not
                              >have delusions of grandeur that I am even 1/100th the man Charles Darwin
                              >was).
                              >
                              >We must evolve away from art, or we will never have a true discipline. I
                              >recommend you read Steve McConnell's new book 'Professional Software
                              >Development'.
                              >
                              >Art in software is often a rogue, but very smart developer being clever and
                              >writing code others cannot understand and refusing to work in a pair. This
                              >is the antithesis of what our profession needs as we know from the failure
                              >rates published my many organization. You have roughly a 5% chance of
                              >success across all dimensions when a custom software project is started.
                              >
                              >Kind regards,
                              >Damon Carr, Chief Technologist
                              >Agilefactor
                              >www.agilefactor.com
                              >
                              >
                              >Author of the forthcoming book 'agilefactor : The Next Generation of Agile
                              >Software Development'
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >-----Original Message-----
                              >From: Lenny Primak [mailto:lprimak@...]
                              >Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 4:07 PM
                              >To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                              >Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
                              >
                              >OO programming is more of an art then a sciense, that's why it's so
                              >difficult to deliver quantitatively good code. That's why we use terms like
                              >"smells", and one design is not necessarily right or wrong. That's why
                              >working systems seem to be "alive".
                              >That's when you know stuff works when it's supple and feels adaptive with
                              >change, and it susprises you in a good way.
                              >
                              >Rim, Mark wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >>I'm relatively inexperienced with domain modelling. The models I make
                              >>suck butt. But I stick to it because I really see value in Eric Evan's
                              >>ubiquitous language.
                              >>
                              >>Luckily, I've gotten quite disciplined with TDD which tends to clean up
                              >>most of the glaring errors in design. I've learned how to recognize
                              >>various code smells. I've also internalized a lot of design patterns
                              >>and refactoring techniques which help address many of the code smells.
                              >>The unit tests make the refactoring possible in the first place. I keep
                              >>on the lookout for incongruencies between the domain and my code. Over
                              >>time this butt-sucking design gets less sucky. Often it gets quite
                              >>
                              >>
                              >bearable.
                              >
                              >
                              >>I still tend to have at least one "gummy muck" object. An object which
                              >>has too many responsibilities, or gets assigned all responsiblities I
                              >>don't know what to do with. Perhaps one day I'll learn some techniques
                              >>for refactoring out gummy mucks.
                              >>
                              >>I get the feeling that making good object models is tough for even
                              >>experienced OO folks. Perhaps that's why this domain modelling thing is
                              >>so unpopular among programmers. polymorphism can be explained in few
                              >>minutes. domain modelling is difficult to explain for even object
                              >>gurus. And us busy programmers don't have time for vague theories that take
                              >>
                              >>
                              >more than a few minutes.
                              >
                              >
                              >>--Choy
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>>-----Original Message-----
                              >>>From: Sathyanarayanan Srinivasan [mailto:cssathya@...]
                              >>>Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 9:45 AM
                              >>>To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                              >>>Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>My take is that people still don't fully understand how to do OO using
                              >>>OO languages. I would probably think that the major reason for this is
                              >>>the rush by companies to market their product, thereby reducing the
                              >>>timeline to a minimum. They want programs to be written in the latest
                              >>>technologies because it's cool (i.e., more marketable), but don't
                              >>>bother to educate or give time to developers to educate themselves. As
                              >>>a result, the developers, in their hurry to meet their deadlines, fall
                              >>>back to what they already know - procedural programming.
                              >>>
                              >>>I agree with Gene in that this is a grass-roots effort. You cannot
                              >>>expect things to change all of a sudden. But as more and more colleges
                              >>>teach OO in Software courses and as more and more professionals who
                              >>>understand and work with people who don't, I believe the conversion
                              >>>will take place. It will definitely be painful (ask any guy who
                              >>>converted a legacy app to a new app), but it will happen nevertheless.
                              >>>
                              >>>I recently created a presentation based on our discussions in the
                              >>>group on principles. A friend of mine gave the presentation to his
                              >>>group (of around 40-50), who are involved in a large enterprise (J2EE)
                              >>>software. We made these observations.
                              >>>
                              >>>1. Most of the attendees were software professionals with at least 3
                              >>>years of experience.
                              >>>2. Most of them knew Java or closely related OO language.
                              >>>3. Almost none of them had heard of the 5 principles explained in
                              >>>Martin's book.
                              >>>4. Almost all of them were interested and enthusiastic at the end on
                              >>>hearing the principles, which was evident from insightful questions
                              >>>that they asked at the end. In fact, one person pointed out a place in
                              >>>their existing design, which potentially violated LSP!
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>From this, I believe that hope is definitely there.
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>>"It is easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of computers by
                              >>>the sense of accomplishment you get from getting them to run at all."
                              >>>
                              >>>- Douglas Adams
                              >>>http://www.cssathya.com
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>----Original Message Follows----
                              >>>From: Gene Volovich <gene@...>
                              >>>Reply-To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                              >>>To: dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com
                              >>>Subject: Re: [dpsg-nyc] Re: Enterprise SOA Book
                              >>>Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:32:38 -0400
                              >>>
                              >>>I'm not so sure about that - I think OO, and I do mean an OO way of
                              >>>thinking about the problem domain, IS becoming standard because it is
                              >>>a natural way to think about the domain when it comes to (especially
                              >>>large) business and enterprise systems, the majority of software
                              >>>projects these days. If in all the schools and on the job training
                              >>>people are taught to think in terms of objects, I don't see why they
                              >>>wouldn't adopt that way of thinking. It's true that you see a lot of
                              >>>procedural code written in OO languages, but I think for larger
                              >>>projects, and especially using DDD, it is so natural to adopt an OO
                              >>>view of the domain that people will do so, and it won't take a genius
                              >>>to do it.
                              >>>
                              >>>Gene
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>On Oct 1, 2004, at 1:22 AM, Lenny Primak wrote:
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>>I agree with that first sentence wholeheartedly.
                              >>>> Few people know what polymorphism truly is, let alone use and
                              >>>>develop a proper object model. OO is certainly not mainstream,
                              >>>>and will not be in at least 100 years, if ever.
                              >>>>
                              >>>> On Sep 30, 2004, at 6:18 PM, Jim Espaillat wrote:
                              >>>>
                              >>>> > I disagree that OO is mainstream. Certainly OO LANGUAGES are >
                              >>>>mainstream, but as we all know, using an OO language does not >
                              >>>>automatically cause you to create OO code. Ask the typical >
                              >>>>programmer if he knows OO, and he'll typically respond with >
                              >>>>something like, "Yes, I know OO, I work in Java", as if
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>they were
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > one and the same. (This is not, of course, limited to
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>just Java,
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > but also C++, C#, PowerBuilder, and any other
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>mainstream OO language
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > you care to think of.) Yet you look at what they're
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>producing, and
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > 9 times out of 10 it's procedural code wrapped inside a
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>few objects.
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> > Unfortunately, I don't think OO will ever become mainstream. I
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>consider myself a pretty smart guy, and I didn't get it
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>at first.
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > Yes you need smarts, but you also need to have enough
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>experience to
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > recognize A) how the paradigm is different, and B) that it's a
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>better one.
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> > I haven't seen any survey done on this (nor would it be
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>accurate,
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > since so many think they're doing OO when they're
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>really not), but
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > if I had to take an educated guess, I would say about
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>10 percent of
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > developers actually understand OO. Making things worse, in my
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>experience I've always had to co-exist with other
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>developers on a
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > project, so that even if I wanted to build things the
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>right way, it
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > was often an accomplishment just to get them to not put business
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>logic in the GUI, never mind having any sort of a true
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>object model.
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> > Meanwhile design patterns, as we know them at least, are useless
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>without an OO underpinning, so even if we concede that
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>half the true
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > OO developers know about patterns, that's still only 5
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>percent of
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > the universe. And I may be estimating high; as you
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>point out, you
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > only find 1 percent of developers suitable for hiring.
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> > I recently joined this group, partly to learn
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>something, but also
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > partly to not feel quite so alone in this effort. I
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>truly wish I
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > didn't have to work in an enviromnent where I have to maintain
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>programs that don't work well, are written horribly, and yet I'm
                              >>>>>constrained by managers who won't let me change something just >
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>because I don't like it ("if it ain't broke...", but how do you >
                              >>>>convince them it IS broken?).
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> > --
                              >>>> > Jim Espaillat
                              >>>> > Delphinus Consulting, Inc.
                              >>>> > www.delphinusinc.com
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> > PS. I'm not a .NET guy (PB actually), but I'll
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>definitely take you
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > up on the next talk. One of the best parts about thinking at a
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>sufficiently high level of abstraction is that the
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>language becomes
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > secondary. Good thing, too; I've yet to see any good
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>OO books come
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > out with PB examples...
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> > --- In dpsg-nyc@yahoogroups.com, "Damon Carr"
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>><damon@a...> wrote:
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> >>
                              >>>> >> Gene,
                              >>>> >>
                              >>>> >> Your kind words are appreciated. It's the professionals like >
                              >>>>yourself that >> will fix the problems we all face one programmer
                              >>>>at a
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>time, bottom
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > up (where
                              >>>> >> I believe it has to happen).
                              >>>> >>
                              >>>> >> As a man who is 'fighting the good fight' it's nice to
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>hear some
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > positive
                              >>>> >> feedback (as it sounds like you are as well). The fact that we
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>have to fight >> to get accepted what is proven to work better
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>is it is
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>confounding
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > (although
                              >>>> >> I think from 10 years in NYC I should know enough about the >
                              >>>>Psychology of >> change, politics, etc. to see how it has been
                              >>>>misapplied and > misunderstood).
                              >>>> >>
                              >>>> >> Like someone said "all great men our misunderstood" perhaps It
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>should also >> be "all software engineering advancements are
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>misunderstood (at > least in >> most of the east cost, Midwest
                              >>>>and South for at 15 years or so, > except in >> Academia and the
                              >>>>top 5% of the Software
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>Organizations". I come from
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> >> California (Northern), where the exposure to innovation rate is
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>more like >> 50% and we would never stand for the standards I
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>see
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>every day in
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > Financial
                              >>>> >> Services in NYC (that is the only industry I can speak with >
                              >>>>authority on, as >> that is where I have led on the 'large
                              >>>>projects' over
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>$1,000,000)
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > although
                              >>>> >> my other experiences have verified my experiences in other >
                              >>>>industries in >> NYC). Since the day I got here I was shocked.
                              >>>>Although
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>my current
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > position
                              >>>> >> is a welcome change I must say. But statistically it
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>is in the 3rd
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > standard
                              >>>> >> deviation.
                              >>>> >>
                              >>>> >> I think that is how long it took Object-Oriented to > be
                              >>>>'mainstream' (15 >> years?) via C++ and Smalltalk, no? Design
                              >>>>Patterns is
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>running on
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > what, 13
                              >>>> >> years(?) and it is not there. Do you all think 15 years is the
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>time frame?
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>> >> 20? I do not mean the leading team of gurus we have in
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>this group,
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > but when
                              >>>> >> will your average mid-level programmer schlepping
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>into the office
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > every day
                              >>>> >> start finding refactorings into the Adapter pattern
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>(unifying 20
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> >> interfaces), and doing Agile modeling on a whiteboard with >
                              >>>>colleagues, >> perhaps on a refactoring of old C++ or even C code
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>that is being
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > moved to C#
                              >>>> >> (my personal favorite language as it is an
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>international standard.
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > I just
                              >>>> >> read an article about a 15 million line C# app running
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>on Linux.
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > Give it 18
                              >>>> >> months and C# and the FCL will be on every OS (but
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>predictions are
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > always
                              >>>> >> dangerous (grin)).
                              >>>> >>
                              >>>> >> This 15 year rule seems not to hold for technologies that are
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>tangible and >> packaged, as they are rapidly accepted and are
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>evolving > constantly, but it >> seems to hold for practices like
                              >>>>pair programming, TDD, and > technical design >> and refactoring
                              >>>>using Patterns. We could call it the Doubt, > Uncertainty, >>
                              >>>>Misunderstanding and Botched-Attempt (DUMB) Principal.
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>><grin>.. My
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> >> presentation tomorrow (today if you read this
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>Thursday).. I can't
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > wait.
                              >>>> >>
                              >>>> >> For my presentation, I just happen to be covering a
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>topic that is
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > totally
                              >>>> >> different then what my book is about and this group: Advanced
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>Multithreading >> in C#. So many of you might want to skip this
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>one and
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>come to my
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > next one
                              >>>> >> which is tentatively: 'Best Software Engineering
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>Practices in .NET
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> >> Development: How to be Agile, Refactor Code to Design
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>Patterns and
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> >> Everything In-between' which is based on a paper I am
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>writing for
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > various
                              >>>> >> publications and is nothing short of a warning shot
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>over the bow.
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > My book is
                              >>>> >> the full scale invasion. Give it 15 years and perhaps
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>it will sell
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> > <grin>.
                              >>>> >> However you are all incredibly welcome to not only come, but to
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>>join me for >> the dinner I have planned afterwards.
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>> >>
                              >>>> >> Kind Regards,
                              >>>> >> Damon Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO >> agilefactor >>
                              >>>>www.agilefactor.com >> >> P.S. Anyone know a good CEO so I can
                              >>>>just be 'Chief
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>Technologist'?
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> >
                              >>>> > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                              >>>> > dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@... > > Yahoo! Groups Links > >
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>> > >
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                              >>>>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                              >>>>
                              >>>>ADVERTISEMENT
                              >>>><image.tiff>
                              >>>><image.tiff>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >>>>
                              >>>> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                              >>>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dpsg-nyc/
                              >>>>
                              >>>> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              >>>>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >>>>
                              >>>> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>Yahoo! Terms of
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>>Service.
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>
                              >>>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                              >>>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                              >>>
                              >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                              >>>--------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo!
                              >>>Companion Toolbar.
                              >>>Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                              >>>http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/AmOolB/TM
                              >>>--------------------------------------------------------------
                              >>>------~->
                              >>>
                              >>>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                              >>>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                              >>>
                              >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>>
                              >>=======================================================================
                              >>======= This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If
                              >>you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If
                              >>this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality
                              >>or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent
                              >>through its network.
                              >>Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until
                              >>they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be
                              >>
                              >>
                              >secure.
                              >
                              >
                              >>=======================================================================
                              >>=======
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                              >>dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                              >>
                              >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make
                              >a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
                              >Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                              >http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/AmOolB/TM
                              >--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
                              >
                              >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                              >
                              >Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dpsg-nyc-unsubscribe@...
                              >
                              >Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Rim, Mark
                              Damon, ... I disagree with your characterization of art. I d say something like, we must have discipline in order to pursue the highest art in software
                              Message 14 of 28 , Oct 5, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Damon,

                                > We must evolve away from art, or we will never have a true
                                > discipline. I
                                > recommend you read Steve McConnell's new book 'Professional Software
                                > Development'.

                                I disagree with your characterization of art. I'd say something like, "we must
                                have discipline in order to pursue the highest art in software development."

                                > Art in software is often a rogue, but very smart developer
                                > being clever and
                                > writing code others cannot understand and refusing to work in
                                > a pair. This
                                > is the antithesis of what our profession needs as we know
                                > from the failure
                                > rates published my many organization. You have roughly a 5% chance of
                                > success across all dimensions when a custom software project
                                > is started.

                                Rogue cleverness is usually bad for a software development effort. But I
                                wouldn't call that art. I'd call that "being the only one who understands
                                something important." That is almost always bad.

                                Don't blame art for bad behavior. Football is a mixture of art, science and
                                mostly discipline. A player who decides that he's gonna surprise everyone by
                                occasionally taking the ball to the endzone may make it to the endzone. But
                                his team will probably have a tough time winning the game, and no chance of
                                having a winning season. He might say he's being creative, and artistic. But
                                he's actually just weakening his team.

                                Poor teamwork in software is often a rogue, but very smart developer being
                                clever and writing code others cannot understand and refusing to work in a
                                pair. Art in software is often a creative solution to a difficult problem.

                                --Choy


                                ==============================================================================
                                This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received
                                this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was
                                misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB
                                retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network.
                                Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they
                                are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
                                ==============================================================================
                              • Damon Carr
                                Mark, I think you are agreeing with me, no? What you have said is well done and does clarify a few issues I said for others perhaps. Thank you. ... I disagree
                                Message 15 of 28 , Oct 5, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Mark,

                                  I think you are agreeing with me, no? What you have said is well done and
                                  does clarify a few issues I said for others perhaps. Thank you.

                                  > We must evolve away from art, or we will never have a true discipline.
                                  > I recommend you read Steve McConnell's new book 'Professional Software
                                  > Development'.

                                  I disagree with your characterization of art. I'd say something like, "we
                                  must have discipline in order to pursue the highest art in software
                                  development."

                                  OK. I can accept that as long as by science, I mean something that can have
                                  repeatable and measurable results via the scientific method. We have relied
                                  on one or two 'superheroes' to get our projects done for far too long. This
                                  is not repeatable, scalable or in any way an art.

                                  The only way to do that is to (CMM level 5 promised that - what a joke):

                                  1) Use an Agile Process
                                  2) Put your "Rogues" on permanent 'Spike and Refactoring' duty.
                                  3) Measure your effort with quantitative data (For example the CAR ration
                                  that I am publishing, a new metric for Agile Development).
                                  4) Follow the practices - Pair Programming - TDD - Continuous integration.
                                  You will create predictable, repeatable results that are also able to change
                                  and even 'embrace change' (where have I heard that <grin>)...

                                  My point is these technologies already exist. One of my favorites quote was
                                  from David Parnas:

                                  (paraphrasing)

                                  "What are the latest advances on the horizon in Software Engineering"

                                  Dr. Parnas (I believe he is a Dr.): "They have already happened but no one
                                  is using them!"

                                  I could not agree more.


                                  > Art in software is often a rogue, but very smart developer being
                                  > clever and writing code others cannot understand and refusing to work
                                  > in a pair. This is the antithesis of what our profession needs as we
                                  > know from the failure rates published my many organization. You have
                                  > roughly a 5% chance of success across all dimensions when a custom
                                  > software project is started.

                                  Rogue cleverness is usually bad for a software development effort. But I
                                  wouldn't call that art. I'd call that "being the only one who understands
                                  something important." That is almost always bad.

                                  Interesting... I agree this is almost always bad, but it is endemic in most
                                  of the projects I have been a consultant on. It is allowing these 'geniuses'
                                  the ability to carry a project by sheer willpower that keeps software from
                                  being a science. It must be 'self-organizing teams'.

                                  Don't blame art for bad behavior. Football is a mixture of art, science and
                                  mostly discipline.

                                  I'm not... I'm blaming bad behavior for bad behavior <grin>...

                                  A player who decides that he's going to surprise everyone by occasionally
                                  taking the ball to the endzone may make it to the endzone. But his team will
                                  probably have a tough time winning the game, and no chance of having a
                                  winning season. He might say he's being creative, and artistic. But he's
                                  actually just weakening his team.

                                  Well there are some exceptions. I acknowledge the 'spike' solution or 'proof
                                  of concept'. In these cases ON OCCASION when it is planned (if possible)
                                  superhuman effort can be a good thing, but only in the framework on a
                                  structured, iteration based project where this is understood by the team.
                                  This is where I place there 'rogues' as I typically cannot fire them (and
                                  would not want to if I could) and they refuse to pair program of do TDD. So
                                  they are always doing Spike solutions like the old concept of 'Component
                                  Builders and Component Assemblers' They become focused 100% on being
                                  'Component Builders'. That is the only reasonable place I have found for
                                  these "rogues" that fits in my team structure and works. And if the player
                                  above always scores a touchdown the team might feel different. The problem
                                  is (and this is why you cannot have a 'science' using this person) is people
                                  will come to rely on his scoring and eventually he will get injured. Then
                                  what do you have? A team that doesn't know how to win.

                                  Poor teamwork in software is often a rogue, but very smart developer being
                                  clever and writing code others cannot understand and refusing to work in a
                                  pair. Art in software is often a creative solution to a difficult problem.


                                  Yes you almost restated what I said and I just read this. "Poor teamwork in
                                  software is often a rogue" true.

                                  "Art in software is often a creative solution to a difficult problem."

                                  One of the axioms of Agile development are 'keep it simple' and 'collective
                                  code ownership' two rules broken by the artist above. So even if this Rogue
                                  will NOT pair, or do TDD, they MUST adhere to at least simplicity and
                                  collective ownership or they cannot be on the team. We all know this quote:

                                  The best solution is where "it is as complex as necessary but no more". For
                                  Agile that means writing code about what you know in this iteration and all
                                  previous iterations.


                                  All in all I think you are agreeing with me, no? IN fact I think my book is
                                  unique in that I explicitly state what to do with this "Rogue" where this is
                                  not a topic I have seen covered in depth (but I believe it has been
                                  covered). My position is they are always on Spike Solutions. If none exist
                                  then they refactor the code base (looking for smells and patters). They are
                                  the background worker thread.




                                  Kind Regards,
                                  Damon Wilder Carr, Chief Technologist and CEO

                                  .NET SIG Leader - New York Software Industry Association (NYSIA
                                  www.nysia.org)
                                  Founder and President: 'Association for the Advancement of Software
                                  Engineering in .NET' (AASET)
                                  Microsoft Certified Partner and Visual Studio Industry Partner Affiliate
                                  Professional Member - Association for Computing Machinery (www.acm.org)


                                  agilefactor
                                  80 Broad Street
                                  5th Floor
                                  New York, NY 10004

                                  Voice 212.837.7788
                                  Fax 212.859.7359

                                  http://www.agilefactor.com/
                                  http://agiledamon.blogspot.com/
                                • Rim, Mark
                                  Damon, ... That s an innovative approach to uncooperative coders. ... A creative solution can be simple and not disable collective code ownership. I m not sure
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Oct 5, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Damon,

                                    > 2) Put your "Rogues" on permanent 'Spike and Refactoring' duty.

                                    That's an innovative approach to uncooperative coders.

                                    > One of the axioms of Agile development are 'keep it simple'
                                    > and 'collective
                                    > code ownership' two rules broken by the artist above. So even
                                    > if this Rogue
                                    > will NOT pair, or do TDD, they MUST adhere to at least simplicity and
                                    > collective ownership or they cannot be on the team. We all
                                    > know this quote:

                                    A creative solution can be simple and not disable collective code ownership.
                                    I'm not sure why you feel that creativity and art are anathema to agile
                                    software development.

                                    > All in all I think you are agreeing with me, no? IN fact I

                                    Yes, except the part where you feel art is the root of all coding evils. :-)

                                    > think my book is
                                    > unique in that I explicitly state what to do with this
                                    > "Rogue" where this is
                                    > not a topic I have seen covered in depth (but I believe it has been
                                    > covered). My position is they are always on Spike Solutions.
                                    > If none exist
                                    > then they refactor the code base (looking for smells and
                                    > patters). They are
                                    > the background worker thread.

                                    Again, kudos to your unique and creative approach to dealing with that "rogue"
                                    energy.

                                    --Choy

                                    ==============================================================================
                                    This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received
                                    this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was
                                    misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB
                                    retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network.
                                    Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they
                                    are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
                                    ==============================================================================
                                  • Lenny Primak
                                    Mark, I think you have a misunderstanding of what, at least I, mean by art Art is a good thing. It s not being creative and undermine everything that s
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Oct 5, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Mark, I think you have a misunderstanding of what, at least I, mean by 'art'
                                      Art is a good thing. It's not being creative and undermine everything
                                      that's everyone else is doing in a unique, but not-understandable way.
                                      Artist is the one that actually makes that 'leap', the breakthrough that
                                      actually makes a simple, cohesive model out of customer's jumbled
                                      requirements.
                                      Artist is the one who interprets the unclear, muddled user's
                                      requirements and makes
                                      a clear, well-abstracted, well-modularised, great-smelling object model.
                                      It's a creative translation, and factoring out, of the actual object model.
                                      It's the chizzling of a great, solid, simple sculpture of a high-entropy
                                      collection
                                      of boulders that usually comprise the user's requirements.

                                      Rim, Mark wrote:

                                      >Damon,
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >>We must evolve away from art, or we will never have a true
                                      >>discipline. I
                                      >>recommend you read Steve McConnell's new book 'Professional Software
                                      >>Development'.
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      >I disagree with your characterization of art. I'd say something like, "we must
                                      >have discipline in order to pursue the highest art in software development."
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >>Art in software is often a rogue, but very smart developer
                                      >>being clever and
                                      >>writing code others cannot understand and refusing to work in
                                      >>a pair. This
                                      >>is the antithesis of what our profession needs as we know
                                      >>from the failure
                                      >>rates published my many organization. You have roughly a 5% chance of
                                      >>success across all dimensions when a custom software project
                                      >>is started.
                                      >>
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      >Rogue cleverness is usually bad for a software development effort. But I
                                      >wouldn't call that art. I'd call that "being the only one who understands
                                      >something important." That is almost always bad.
                                      >
                                      >Don't blame art for bad behavior. Football is a mixture of art, science and
                                      >mostly discipline. A player who decides that he's gonna surprise everyone by
                                      >occasionally taking the ball to the endzone may make it to the endzone. But
                                      >his team will probably have a tough time winning the game, and no chance of
                                      >having a winning season. He might say he's being creative, and artistic. But
                                      >he's actually just weakening his team.
                                      >
                                      >Poor teamwork in software is often a rogue, but very smart developer being
                                      >clever and writing code others cannot understand and refusing to work in a
                                      >pair. Art in software is often a creative solution to a difficult problem.
                                      >
                                      >
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.