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

Re: [XP] Re: Improving “Service Access” for better Agile programming

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    Hello, Raju. When you re finished accusing us of operating a closed religion and such, could you please relate your new XML-based programming language to Agile
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello, Raju. When you're finished accusing us of operating a closed
      religion and such, could you please relate your new XML-based
      programming language to Agile and XP principles and practices?

      In particular I'd be interested in hearing how you plan to address:

      Communicating with humans using the code, since XML is a good
      language for computers, but not so good for humans;

      Test-driven development in XML programming;

      Refactoring;

      and whichever other XP and Agile practices and values seem to you
      most appropriate to discuss.

      Thanks,

      Ron

      On Wednesday, November 1, 2006, at 10:44:34 PM, you wrote:

      > I have posted here, because I believe it is also a form of
      > extreme programming for the emerging XML based programming languages
      > such as Vista/XAML and Adobe's MXML/Flex 2. (They are not buzz words,
      > many people are making living on MXML/Flash and all the browsers
      > supporting VML or SVG).

      > I assumed extreme programming is not a closed religion, where
      > no new processes can be proposed. Who decides which one goes in to
      > extreme programming and which one is not. Is there any rule that
      > extreme programming must conform to certain closed religious
      > guidelines?

      > I hope, extreme programming is open to new programming
      > languages and processes. I hope this group allows academic discussion
      > to extend it, when new processes are found, that uses new
      > capabilities for emerging languages, when they are discovered.

      > If you read newly added material to the following webpage,
      > which clearly shows that XML based graphic languages have an
      > interesting and useful capability for extreme programming:
      > http://www.cbsdf.com/service-access/3D-Board.htm

      > Please understand, I am not positing speculative processes.
      > If you see the web site, you would know that I have put many years of
      > effort to design that. I spend years to make sure that they work.

      > I hope I am not wrong in assuming that extreme programming is
      > open to academic discussion and to change, when new processes are
      > found.



      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      The rules are ways of thinking, not ways to avoid thinking.
    • chiluvuri1
      Jeffries: I am not accusing any one of any closed religion. I am just saying, that I posted here because, I believe the processes would also a form of extreme
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeffries:

        I am not accusing any one of any closed religion. I am just
        saying, that I posted here because, I believe the processes would
        also a form of extreme programming.

        You made very valid point:
        > Communicating with humans using the code, since XML is a
        > good language for computers, but not so good for humans;

        I couldn't agree more. Also let me also add, XML based
        languages are designed for generation, usually by using programmable
        languages such as Java/C#. They (Java/C#) are certainly good for
        humans, or at least better than XML languages. Unfortunately it is
        hard to build "loosely coupled" parts in Java as explained.

        Unfortunately many developers are increasingly needed to
        build online applications, hence need to write XML based graphics
        languages. Please don't forget DHTML/Ajax and MXML/Flash also XML
        based languages.

        Many of us cannot wish them away and has to deal with them.
        Accommodating XML languages, I feel, is helpful for the XP. I hope,
        there is nothing wrong in academic discussion.

        Hence like to present better programming patterns which could
        minimize dependencies between parts, hence make the work needed for
        both TDD and refractoring simpler. Don't you think, the CF pattern
        presented at the end can do that?
        http://www.cbsdf.com/service-access/CBSDF-Objectives.htm

        I felt, XP not only includes guidelines for practicing it but
        also need better programming patterns. Please remember that they are
        not methodologies as on may expect, but just I felt useful
        programming patterns for extreme programming and just like to see
        academic feedback.

        Forgive me, if I misunderstood XP or my post feels like
        argumentative, which I wish to avoid.

        Best Regards,
        Raju

        --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
        <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hello, Raju. When you're finished accusing us of operating a closed
        > religion and such, could you please relate your new XML-based
        > programming language to Agile and XP principles and practices?
        >
        > In particular I'd be interested in hearing how you plan to address:
        >
        > Communicating with humans using the code, since XML is a good
        > language for computers, but not so good for humans;
        >
        > Test-driven development in XML programming;
        >
        > Refactoring;
        >
        > and whichever other XP and Agile practices and values seem to you
        > most appropriate to discuss.
        >
        > Thanks,
        >
        > Ron
      • Sammy Larbi
        Raju, I do not recall the original post, and I haven t kept up with this thread, so I don t know where you got the idea that XP-practitioners and advocates
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Raju,

          I do not recall the original post, and I haven't kept up with this
          thread, so I don't know where you got the idea that XP-practitioners and
          advocates were religious zealots who no longer think, preferring instead
          to follow blindly their perfect, one-true-religion. I had been reading,
          and occasionally posting, on this list for several months now, and to be
          sure, I have on rares occasions seen advice here that seems so dogmatic
          as to be absurd when applied to a particular situation. However, that
          is far from the norm. In fact, I have not seen such a group as a whole
          which is open to discussing new ideas and learning from others as this
          one is.

          But, as I see it, it is not the job of the Agile community to make the
          "XML-based languages" community more agile. It is something we must
          learn for ourselves, with the guidance of, and standing on the shoulders
          of these giants who have come before us. I am, among others to be sure,
          trying to do that in my spare time, and bring it to our community.

          Ron,

          When I first read "XML-based languages," my first thought "how absurd."
          Then I realized, I used one daily. So, I'd like to address some of the
          issues you raised below. My experience in "xml-based languages" comes
          exclusively from Coldfusion, so I will keep my comments related to that
          language.

          Ron Jeffries wrote, On 11/1/2006 10:17 PM:
          > Hello, Raju. When you're finished accusing us of operating a closed
          > religion and such, could you please relate your new XML-based
          > programming language to Agile and XP principles and practices?
          >
          > In particular I'd be interested in hearing how you plan to address:
          >
          > Communicating with humans using the code, since XML is a good
          > language for computers, but not so good for humans;
          >
          >
          Now, this is certainly true for long reams of data, which span perhaps
          several thousand lines in a file. It is certainly easy to get lost in
          the structure. But when we are writing code, if we follow good design
          practices, we likely wouldn't be writing that many lines of code in a
          file, much less in a function. Therefore, it is not as hard to read as
          one might think when the term XML is used. Further, even if you do
          encounter that monster method, it is no harder to read (or perhaps, not
          significantly so) than the same monster method in another language.

          In particular, a newcomer may have an easier time figuring out what is
          going on in Coldfusion than Ruby, where concise elegant code seems to be
          more a part of the objective than in many other languages. But, as a
          newcomer to Ruby, I recall being absolutely confused by the idea of
          closures. Further, some method names are so short as to be obfuscating
          their purpose. But I still love Ruby - it just takes becoming more
          familiar with the language to be able to see the benefits gained in
          communication. The same is true, I think, for CF.

          Certainly the XML creates much more clutter than we need. I've gotten
          sick of it at times. But, it does have it's advantages for
          communication with humans. For instance, when you /must/ mix some code
          and HTML, I find it much easier to understand what is going on than
          using the <% put several lines of script here %> that .NET, Java, and
          Rails all use. Of course, that is only making it easier to follow the
          flow in a document whose flow, by its nature of being XML, is likely
          harder to read than it could be. I am not at all familiar with
          Vista/XAML, but at least with the Adobe products Raju mentioned, and
          Coldfusion (which is also Adobe, but he did not mention it) - these are
          made for web development. So, this ease of reading when mixed with HTML
          can be an advantage.

          Finally, (again, at least in the case of Coldfusion), its dynamic typing
          and its "very high level" nature, more than make up for the extra
          clutter, when compared with Java or .NET (at least the C#, VB, ASP
          varieties). These all "get in your way," so to speak, while CF does
          not. It is not as nice as Rails when comparing among the choices with
          web development, but it really approaches it. This relates to
          communication in that you have to explain less to see the point, so to
          speak, and in most cases. I say "most" cases because, for instance,
          instantiating an object in CF is quite painful, even when compared to
          Java). But for the most part, the dynamic typing and it being VHL, as I
          mention, enhance communication when compared to more "traditional"
          languages, because of the brevity you gain.


          > Test-driven development in XML programming;
          >
          >

          Our community is still new to "Agile," so we do not have many of the
          same tools that help you in other languages. However, while it took
          quite some time, there are now at least two unit-testing frameworks
          available for CF, so we are getting on that path. In fact, I use TDD at
          work, though I am not as good at it yet as I may someday be.

          > Refactoring;
          >
          We can refactor any time we want (by hand =) ), but I don't know yet of
          any tool that will help us the way you see in the IDEs of more
          languages more established in the Agile community. However, there is an
          Eclipse plugin someone has begun developing, and I've had on my "to-do"
          list for a while to join it and add some refactoring support in. Being
          in school and working, and having other personal projects, I haven't yet
          got that far down in the list of priorities, but I'm hoping someday
          within the next couple of months that I can start familiarizing myself
          with the project. Then, maybe by the end of next summer, we may have
          something to help us in this regard.


          > and whichever other XP and Agile practices and values seem to you
          > most appropriate to discuss.
          >
          >

          The way I see it, most of XP/Agile can be applied to any language.
          There is nothing about an XML based language that says we cannot value
          (to quote the Manifesto):

          Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
          Working software over comprehensive documentation
          Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
          Responding to change over following a plan

          In fact, scanning the what is XP page on your site
          (http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/whatisxp.htm), I am not seeing a
          core practice that cannot be done. It is just up to us to do them.

          Ours is starting to mature to the point where we are finally getting
          some tools that really aid in responding to change (such as the TDD and
          refactoring you mentioned). We are starting to see TDD articles in the
          relevant publications. As I see it, however, it is not a fault of the
          languages themselves that we were slow to come to the table, but about
          the maturity of the community behind the language. I think these Agile
          principles span over just about any modern way of programming I could
          think of - excepting the punch cards we use in the office upstairs =).
          I find them hard to communicate with, even when I read what I punched
          after letting it sit for only 5 minutes.

          If you would like to raise other issues, I'd be glad to respond to them.

          Regards,

          Sam


          > Thanks,
          >
          > Ron
          >
          > On Wednesday, November 1, 2006, at 10:44:34 PM, you wrote:
          >
          >
          >> I have posted here, because I believe it is also a form of
          >> extreme programming for the emerging XML based programming languages
          >> such as Vista/XAML and Adobe's MXML/Flex 2. (They are not buzz words,
          >> many people are making living on MXML/Flash and all the browsers
          >> supporting VML or SVG).
          >>
          >
          >
          >> I assumed extreme programming is not a closed religion, where
          >> no new processes can be proposed. Who decides which one goes in to
          >> extreme programming and which one is not. Is there any rule that
          >> extreme programming must conform to certain closed religious
          >> guidelines?
          >>
          >
          >
          >> I hope, extreme programming is open to new programming
          >> languages and processes. I hope this group allows academic discussion
          >> to extend it, when new processes are found, that uses new
          >> capabilities for emerging languages, when they are discovered.
          >>
          >
          >
          >> If you read newly added material to the following webpage,
          >> which clearly shows that XML based graphic languages have an
          >> interesting and useful capability for extreme programming:
          >> http://www.cbsdf.com/service-access/3D-Board.htm
          >>
          >
          >
          >> Please understand, I am not positing speculative processes.
          >> If you see the web site, you would know that I have put many years of
          >> effort to design that. I spend years to make sure that they work.
          >>
          >
          >
          >> I hope I am not wrong in assuming that extreme programming is
          >> open to academic discussion and to change, when new processes are
          >> found.
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          > Ron Jeffries
          > www.XProgramming.com
          > The rules are ways of thinking, not ways to avoid thinking.
          >
          >
          >
          > 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
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Ron Jeffries
          Hello, Sammy. On Thursday, November 2, 2006, at 10:01:03 AM, you ... I produce my entire web site in XML. Much of my content consists of programs in various
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello, Sammy. On Thursday, November 2, 2006, at 10:01:03 AM, you
            wrote:

            > Therefore, it is not as hard to read as
            > one might think when the term XML is used. Further, even if you do
            > encounter that monster method, it is no harder to read (or perhaps, not
            > significantly so) than the same monster method in another language.

            I produce my entire web site in XML. Much of my content consists of
            programs in various programming languages. I perceive a very
            significant difference in readability between the two.

            Ron Jeffries
            www.XProgramming.com
            Know what I pray for? The strength to change what I can, the inability to
            accept what I can't and the incapacity to tell the difference. --Calvin and Hobbes
          • Ron Jeffries
            Hello, Sammy. On Thursday, November 2, 2006, at 10:01:03 AM, you ... No doubt all of XP can be done in most any situation. I was -- and am -- asking Raju to
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello, Sammy. On Thursday, November 2, 2006, at 10:01:03 AM, you
              wrote:

              > The way I see it, most of XP/Agile can be applied to any language.
              > There is nothing about an XML based language that says we cannot value
              > (to quote the Manifesto):

              > Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
              > Working software over comprehensive documentation
              > Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
              > Responding to change over following a plan

              > In fact, scanning the what is XP page on your site
              > (http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/whatisxp.htm), I am not seeing a
              > core practice that cannot be done. It is just up to us to do them.

              No doubt all of XP can be done in most any situation. I was -- and
              am -- asking Raju to relate his posting to our topic here, which to
              my way of thinking he was not doing.

              Ron Jeffries
              www.XProgramming.com
              Testing quality into a program is like spinning straw into gold.
              -- George Cameron.
            • Sammy Larbi
              Hi Ron, ... For me, the difference is not so striking, I guess. Though it is noticeable, given that I can develop a web application several times faster using
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Ron,

                Ron Jeffries wrote, On 11/2/2006 8:43 PM:
                > Hello, Sammy. On Thursday, November 2, 2006, at 10:01:03 AM, you
                > wrote:
                >
                >
                >> Therefore, it is not as hard to read as
                >> one might think when the term XML is used. Further, even if you do
                >> encounter that monster method, it is no harder to read (or perhaps, not
                >> significantly so) than the same monster method in another language.
                >>
                >
                > I produce my entire web site in XML. Much of my content consists of
                > programs in various programming languages. I perceive a very
                > significant difference in readability between the two.
                >
                >

                For me, the difference is not so striking, I guess. Though it is
                noticeable, given that I can develop a web application several times
                faster using it than most alternatives, I'll gladly accept what is for
                me, the minor inconvenience.

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