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

Re: Re: [XP] Refactoring is the problem

Expand Messages
  • Keith Ray
    (for Ron about congruence ) Satir Interaction Model. The Interaction Model consists of four steps:
    Message 1 of 91 , Oct 1 8:42 AM
      (for Ron about congruence
      <http://www.ayeconference.com/Articles/Beyondblaming.html> )

      "Satir Interaction Model. The Interaction Model consists of four steps:
      1. Intake: what is seen and heard
      2. Interpretation: how the recipient interpreted the message (assumptions!)
      3. Feelings: how the recipient felt about the interpretation
      4. Response: what the recipient communicated in response"


      Survival Rules and change:

      "Don's Dismal Dilemma: How will I achieve my goals, when I'm not in
      charge or control?"
      "Rhonda's Second Revelation: 'When change is inevitable, we struggle
      most to keep what we value most.' - Jerry Weinberg"

      On 10/1/06, yahoogroups@... <yahoogroups@...> wrote:
      > From: "Dave Rooney" <dave.rooney.at.mayford.ca@...>
      > To: "extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com"
      > <extremeprogramming.at.yahoogroups.com@...>
      > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 8:35 AM
      > Subject: Re: [XP] Refactoring is the problem
      > > Hi Joe,
      > >
      > > After I sent my first response, I decided to go back an re-read your
      > > original post. I do indeed think that this is a case where the
      > > person is pushing back against a 180 degree change in the way she was
      > > taught to develop software.
      > >
      > > During the summer after 1st year university, I built a small
      > > inventory management system for a group I was working with. It was a
      > > great environment, because I had the Customer sitting just a few feet
      > > away and had very rapid feedback at all times. I actually delivered
      > > that system in small increments as I completed functionality. Pretty
      > > cool concept for 1985.
      > >
      > > Fast forward to the summer of 1986. I came back to the same group
      > > and, as Customers do, they wanted new functionality and some new
      > > features. I had a look at the code and my first remark was, "Who
      > > wrote this crap?!" Well, I had nowhere to look but the mirror. So,
      > > before I made any functional changes, I refactored the code in the
      > > large way. As I did add new or improved features, I refactored even
      > > more. I just didn't know that was the name for it then.
      > >
      > > When I started doing contract work, the first couple of systems I
      > > worked on involved some pretty crappy code that I was brought in to
      > > rescue. In those cases, I either refactored or rewrote a lot of code
      > > in order to stabilize it or improve the design. That was in the
      > > early 90's.
      > >
      > > So, to me, refactoring is a natural act. I never (and I do mean
      > > never) look at code and assume that it will never change. I
      > > explained it to the Customers that the changes were needed in order
      > > to go forward. I also explained that I change my own code as I learn
      > > more about the problem domain - not just something that someone else
      > > wrote.
      > >
      > > That likely isn't everyone's experience. I do remember being told -
      > > as opposed to taught - in school that if it ain't broke, never ever
      > > touch it again. A lot of people likely took that to heart, and
      > > probably wonder why in hell we XPers want to change everything all
      > > the time rather than trying to get it right the first time!
      > >
      > > Does that make any sense?
      > It makes a great deal of sense. There are a lot of things
      > in XP that are more of a framing issue than they are a
      > "communication" issue in the way people normally think of
      > communication.
      > While you may or may not like his politics, I'd strongly
      > suggest reading George Lakoff on framing. If you want
      > to get the point across that continuous refactoring is the
      > best way to keep a design good, you've lost right away
      > if you let the other person set the "design up front" frame.
      > The same goes for TDD. If you let the other person set
      > the 'test' frame, you've lost. You've got to get the
      > "iterative design improvement" frame out there.
      > John Roth
      > > Dave Rooney
      > > Industrial XP Coach
      > > I n d u s t r i a l L o g i c, I n c.
      > > http://www.industriallogic.com
      > > http://www.industrialxp.org
      > >
      > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
      > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
      > Yahoo! Groups Links


      C. Keith Ray
    • Adrian Howard
      ... Now *that* made me laugh out loud. Adrian
      Message 91 of 91 , Oct 7 1:54 AM
        On 6 Oct 2006, at 18:08, Ron Jeffries wrote:

        > Hello, adrianh quietstars. We email macros have been trying hard to
        > give Ron a more human on line appearance, a task whose magnitude we
        > frankly find daunting. We are glad to hear that we have at least
        > been able to amuse you, which is more than he has ever done.

        Now *that* made me laugh out loud.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.