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

Re: [XP] What's biting these guys?

Expand Messages
  • Phlip
    ... This is how you dumbshits should write any article about XP. You find the nearest willing XP team, and your writers sit in with them, preferrably across an
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 1, 2001
      > Dear Editor:

      This is how you dumbshits should write any article about XP.

      You find the nearest willing XP team, and your writers sit in with them,
      preferrably across an iteration transistion.

      The alternative is the equivalent of writing about open heart surgery after
      reading a bunch of insider case histories about it.

      --
      Phlip phlip_cpp@...
      ============== http://phlip.webjump.com ==============
      -- MCCD - Microsoft Certified Co-Dependent --
    • Ron Jeffries
      ... Might be. I have no idea what I said, however. Ronald E Jeffries http://www.XProgramming.com http://www.objectmentor.com
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 1, 2001
        Responding to Glen B. Alleman (06:50 AM 6/1/2001 -0600):
        >After listening to your XP talk in Longmont last month, the discussion of
        >the C3 Project's termination cleared the air on many issues. Is it
        >appropriate to repeat the same words here so everyone can understand in the
        >way your audience did that XP process and XP team were not part of the
        >problem but were the solution "mechanism"?

        Might be. I have no idea what I said, however.



        Ronald E Jeffries
        http://www.XProgramming.com
        http://www.objectmentor.com
      • Don Wells
        They are trying to sell books and consulting services. I think that we need to stop concentrating on our anger for their obvious attempts to advertise their
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 2, 2001
          They are trying to sell books and consulting services. I think that we need
          to stop concentrating on our anger for their obvious attempts to advertise
          their own products and instead focus on our amusement in the future when
          these two announce they are highly effective and experienced XP coaches.

          Much of what they say supports XP. They just have not realized where in
          their own methodology they have gone wrong. They need to realize that
          software is not really about modeling and simulation. Basing your design on
          real world objects doesn't do what they think it does. Introducing an
          object brick and an object mortar isn't going to keep requirements from
          changing.

          They have some interesting things to say about prototypes:

          "Always keep in mind that proof-of-concept prototypes are just like facade
          houses. What do you do if you have pointy-haired management that can't tell
          the difference? It's simple: Don't build your prototypes in code just work
          with pencil-and-paper line drawings."

          Exactly so, except that you can not learn anything from a pencil and paper
          prototype that is useful. You must do it in code. Eventually they will
          figure this out.

          But they do raise an interesting point about prototypes. It is very
          attractive to put a prototype into production. Unfortunately these authors
          do not have enough experience to understand how that happens. The best way
          to avoid it is to spend very little time on a prototype and to only build a
          prototype to demonstrate the solution to a very focused question. In other
          words a spike. Focus on a single problem or question and not simulate the
          entire system.

          They further demonstrate their ignorance in their discourse on prototypes as
          facades. A facade does not answer anyone's question, unless a facade is
          really what was desired. They use the metaphor of creating a movie set:

          "It's a lot like bringing in a construction crew to put up a movie set: They
          can build a "house" (actually a facade) that looks fantastic, in just a
          fraction of the time it takes to build a real house but it will lack a few
          minor details, like blueprints, electrical schematics and plumbing plans.
          Imagine trying to refactor this movie facade into a real house."

          If you are building a set you don't need to call the phone company to
          connect the phone. They seem to think you must have an entire house when
          all you wanted was the front. If I was their customer and I had hired them
          to create a movie set and found out several millions of dollars later they
          had created a small city I would be very, very, very angry. I think they
          know this.

          I do sympathize with Rosenberg and Scott. I used to refactor this way
          myself. I didn't understand the idea of slowly changing the design over a
          long time as things change. Instead I would throw the whole thing away and
          start over. This is what these two are talking about. They want us to
          build a system with the customer sitting next to us (much the same as we do
          in XP) and then refactor it by throwing it away and rebuilding. You don't
          need to do that if you have been testing it and refactoring it effectively
          as you go.

          I have no doubt that these two will come to see what is important in their
          method and what can be disposed of. They will come to see that XP is not
          entirely different from what they are advocating, it just has all the
          useless crap removed from it.

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