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

Re: [XP] Re: Quality tradeoffs and CardMeeting

Expand Messages
  • Rob Park
    So it s functioning on an XP box, but not on my Vista box in IE or Firefox. ??? ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 14, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      So it's functioning on an XP box, but not on my Vista box in IE or Firefox.
      ???

      On Nov 14, 2007 10:41 AM, Rob Park <robert.d.park@...> wrote:

      > So a little OT... is cardmeeting.com broken?
      > I've tried setting up a new meeting twice and can't get the server to
      > "load my meeting's data"?
      >
      > .rob.
      >
      > On Nov 14, 2007 3:58 AM, dwoldrich <dwoldrich@...> wrote:
      >
      > > Hi Ron,
      > >
      > > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com<extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > > Ron Jeffries
      > > <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > > Matt is saying that. It is an assumption that it is possible to
      > > > incur code debt and get the product out the door faster. People
      > > > believe that, even very smart people. Jim Shore claims that that was
      > > > the best way to get the card product out the door in time for the
      > > > Agile conference a year ago.
      > > >
      > > > I think that when people make a decision and get the product out,
      > > > and the decision is counter to what they would have "liked" to have
      > > > done, or what they believe to be "ideal", they will quite often
      > > > rationalize it and say "we had to do that". I think they are wrong
      > > > more often than they are right.
      > >
      > > In the case of CardMeeting, you're right. I'd have to say that, in
      > > hindsight, we were wrong to do what we did because we did not profit
      > > from rushing to demo at Agile 2006. Profit was not the goal, demoing
      > > was, so the demo was successful and rushing worked wonders for that.
      > > But profit really should have been the goal, whoops!
      > >
      > > Anyhow, from the day Jim and I came up with the concept for
      > > CardMeeting, I spent 6-8 weeks banging out a cantankerous prototype
      > > that had many of the same features as what you see today on
      > > CardMeeting.com. At about midpoint, Jim and I realized we could have
      > > enough to actually demo at Agile. So, at that point I threw caution
      > > to the wind: I just rushed and rushed. Tests be damned, just get
      > > something up and running, and I'd clean it up afterwards.
      > >
      > > At Agile 2006, Jim demoed the thing with mostly untested card
      > > persistence code that was less than one day old. It worked for small
      > > groups, people could write on cards in the meetings. Miraculously,
      > > the data got loaded and saved okay. (Some of Jim's original sample
      > > public meetings still live even now on the homepage with a lot of the
      > > original cards he wrote!) We got some nice buzz for a month or three.
      > > Ok, that's all great and we were both glowing from the success. But
      > > then what?
      > >
      > > There was an aftermath of that decision to try and just race to the
      > > finish line. Momentum dropped off real quick after the conference.
      > > That stressed us out; we felt like the cat was out of the bag and we
      > > had to move quickly. It was very frustrating!
      > >
      > > I couldn't iterate, I just spent my limited time on the project
      > > dealing with issues and trying to inject quality into the thing. Had
      > > we started with a plan and iterated and made small releases, we still
      > > would have had many of the same issues to deal with (the majority of
      > > issues I deal with are environmental and not architectural), but we
      > > could have addressed them one at a time and in a less chaotic way. We
      > > would not have made Agile 2006 with a demo (and maybe not even Agile
      > > 2007!) had we treated CardMeeting like a real project, but who knows,
      > > maybe that would have been ok in the grand scheme of things.
      > >
      > > In my experience, paying off code debt and small releases do not make
      > > for a shorter development time overall. I have found it does increase
      > > project visibility for all parties, it does help reveal issues early,
      > > and as a project it does seem to help things behave move predictably -
      > > which likely leads to a greater chance for the project to be a
      > > success. And I know my code quality is always a LOT better when I
      > > work that way, which makes me happy.
      > >
      > > But, I do not agree that pace will necessarily be "optimal" or
      > > anything like that when you use a little finesse when developing
      > > software. Finesse has non-optimal costs to it, too, just as failing
      > > to pay off code debt does. I do think that you wind up with better
      > > products and happier developers, which is what I'm after in the future.
      > >
      > > Cheers,
      > > Dave Woldrich
      > > http://CardMeeting.com <http://cardmeeting.com/>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.