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

Re: Improving “Service Access” for better Agile programming

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.