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

Re: [XP] Digest Number 1943

Expand Messages
  • Patrick McGovern
    if i leave at 9 i can be there by 2. i want as much time with you as i can get. i ll probably go out with some people here but i ll have my phone....i know i m
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      if i leave at 9 i can be there by 2. i want as much time with you as i
      can get. i'll probably go out with some people here but i'll have my
      phone....i know i'm pathetic over you but i'm not ashamed to show it. i
      should've been more like this then.

      extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com wrote:

      > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
      >
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
      >
      > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > There are 25 messages in this issue.
      >
      > Topics in this digest:
      >
      > 1. Re: Re: cons of XP -- fixed bid contracts and "external" interfaces
      > From: "Kyle Cordes" <kyle@...>
      > 2. Re: Re: cons of XP -- fixed bid contracts and "external" interfaces
      > From: Mike Clark <mike@...>
      > 3. Re: Fragile Methods? (rant time)
      > From: "logosity" <wecaputo@...>
      > 4. RE: Book sequence (was: xp minifaq)
      > From: "Charlie Poole" <cpoole@...>
      > 5. Re: Re: Fragile Methods? (rant time)
      > From: wecaputo@...
      > 6. Re: Re: cons of XP -- fixed bid contracts and "external" interfaces
      > From: "Kyle Cordes" <kyle@...>
      > 7. Re: Re: Fragile Methods? (rant time)
      > From: wecaputo@...
      > 8. Re: Bill Rate with Pair Programming
      > From: Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>
      > 9. RE: Bill Rate with Pair Programming
      > From: "Glen B. Alleman" <galleman@...>
      > 10. Re: When to refactor?
      > From: "gorowitch" <gorowitch@...>
      > 11. RE: Bill Rate with Pair Programming
      > From: "Laurent Bossavit" <laurent@...>
      > 12. Re: Bill Rate with Pair Programming
      > From: "Laurent Bossavit" <laurent@...>
      > 13. On wanting success (was Re: cons of XP -- on "success")
      > From: "Laurent Bossavit" <laurent@...>
      > 14. Re: Re: Fragile Methods? (rant time)
      > From: "Laurent Bossavit" <laurent@...>
      > 15. Re: On wanting success (was Re: cons of XP -- on "success")
      > From: Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>
      > 16. Re: RE: cons of XP
      > From: Bill Tozier <bill@...>
      > 17. Re: RE: cons of XP
      > From: Bill Tozier <bill@...>
      > 18. Re: RE: cons of XP
      > From: Bill Tozier <bill@...>
      > 19. Re: cons of XP
      > From: Dossy <dossy@...>
      > 20. Re: cons of XP
      > From: Dossy <dossy@...>
      > 21. Re: cons of XP
      > From: "timatdvc" <timw@...>
      > 22. Re: cons of XP
      > From: Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>
      > 23. Re: Re: cons of XP -- fixed bid contracts and "external" interfaces
      > From: Peter Hansen <peter@...>
      > 24. Re: Book sequence (was: xp minifaq)
      > From: Peter Hansen <peter@...>
      > 25. Re: Book sequence (was: xp minifaq)
      > From: Anders Bengtsson <ndrsbngtssn@...>
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 1
      > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:46:44 -0600
      > From: "Kyle Cordes" <kyle@...>
      > Subject: Re: Re: cons of XP -- fixed bid contracts and "external" interfaces
      >
      >
      >
      >>development, XP will at least put you in a *very good* negotiating
      >>position when the money runs out: Delivering 90% of the value for
      >>100% of the money can be a much better option than 100% of the value
      >>for 200% of the money. (...or 300%, 400%, or more times as much
      >>
      >
      > Here's a more cynical perspective. It will put you in a worse
      > negotiating position when the money runs out, because they will probably
      > take the 90% functionality (it was the most important 90%) and go home.
      > If you instead had delivered almost no working software by that point,
      > then they would be just about forced to keep paying you, in desperate
      > misplaced hope of getting something. Thus you will be better off since
      > you will continue to collect. :-) (large smile, I certainly don't
      > recommend this if you value your relationships with customers!)
      >
      >
      > [ Kyle Cordes * kyle@... * http://kylecordes.com ]
      > [ Consulting, Training, and Software development tips and ]
      > [ techniques: Java, Delphi, ASTA, BDE Alternatives Guide, ]
      > [ JB Open Tools, EJB, Web applications, methodologies, etc. ]
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 2
      > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:54:10 -0700
      > From: Mike Clark <mike@...>
      > Subject: Re: Re: cons of XP -- fixed bid contracts and "external" interfaces
      >
      > Kyle Cordes wrote:
      >
      >
      >>>development, XP will at least put you in a *very good* negotiating
      >>>position when the money runs out: Delivering 90% of the value for
      >>>100% of the money can be a much better option than 100% of the value
      >>>for 200% of the money. (...or 300%, 400%, or more times as much
      >>>
      >>Here's a more cynical perspective. It will put you in a worse
      >>negotiating position when the money runs out, because they will probably
      >>take the 90% functionality (it was the most important 90%) and go home.
      >>If you instead had delivered almost no working software by that point,
      >>then they would be just about forced to keep paying you, in desperate
      >>misplaced hope of getting something. Thus you will be better off since
      >>you will continue to collect. :-) (large smile, I certainly don't
      >>recommend this if you value your relationships with customers!)
      >>
      >>
      >
      > If the money truly ran out, what are you negotiating?
      >
      > Your reputation is certainly better the more business value you deliver before the
      > creek runs dry, which I suppose does put you in a better position to negotiate once the
      > rains return.
      >
      > Mike
      >
      > --
      > Mike Clark
      > Clarkware Consulting, Inc.
      > http://www.clarkware.com
      > 720.851.2014
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 3
      > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:24:29 -0000
      > From: "logosity" <wecaputo@...>
      > Subject: Re: Fragile Methods? (rant time)
      >
      > Me:
      >
      >>>Many very experienced (and I am guessing) successful professional
      >>>programmers (ala Weinberg) use these types of approaches (or feel
      >>>
      > they do
      >
      >>>which is the same thing) and act as if they think that agilists are
      >>>attacking their process, and so by extension them.
      >>>
      >
      > C. Keith Ray:
      >
      >>On the archives of Gerald M. Weinberb's SHAPE forum, I found the
      >>
      > following
      >
      >>quotable bits:
      >>
      >
      > (quotes snipped)
      >
      > Exactly my point. Great examples of true professionals in the spirit
      > of Jerry's "Understanding the Professional Programmer" who initially
      > felt that XP was anti-their approach -- and why not? The whole
      > computer world seemed to dive into hack and fix chaos during the dot
      > com boom, why not a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants process that
      > sanctified an attitude to go along with the legion of snow boarders
      > and skate-rats hired to do the work.
      >
      > It is human nature to avoid change if we don't have a need. If you
      > aren't seeking, by definition you aren't looking for new ideas.
      > Different is a distraction at best (redundant, or unnecessary) and
      > threatening at worse (you *want* the status quo if it is working for
      > you). It just turns out that these guys largely see themselves in XP -
      > - when they look.
      >
      > But you know what? The name wasn't meant for them, it was meant for
      > the seekers. And as it got their attention I say it did its job.
      > Nowadays, I simply call it "our approach", I don't care what name I
      > use. When I need to, I either just say XP or extreme programming, and
      > sometimes agile, but mostly I just tell (and show) people what we do,
      > and they are too busy going gaga over automated Story Testing and
      > CruiseControl to care about names.
      >
      > Keeping in mind Dale's observation that XP seems anti-CMM and RUP,
      > and my contention that it is simply anti-failed process however
      > manifested, I think it is very important to remember that XP doesn't
      > make any sense in a vacuum. It *is* a response to heavy process, but
      > mainly because that stuff was (and is) being misapplied in the IT
      > shops today.
      >
      > CMM maturity is a long way off when you have 7 programmers with 6
      > years experience combined, for whom testing is something they did in
      > high school, and integration means mailing dll's to the one with the
      > most chutzpah (which is why he is the lead). Meanwhile their
      > encouraging but inexperienced (at best) managers are telling the
      > execs the "team" (sitting in cubes on two floors) is a crack-squad of
      > web developers (the best money can buy for $35,000 US a year) and
      > they will have that multi-tier, real-time, legacy integrated,
      > portaled, queued, threaded, COM-enabled, web-enabled, .Net ready,
      > J2EE compatible, Oracle-aware, mission-critical, 6 sigma, EAI system
      > ready to go in four months, no problem since the corporate architect
      > already has the design finished -- if only the damn users would shut
      > up and sign off on the specs instead of changing their minds all the
      > time.
      >
      > IMO It was never the goal of XP to knock out what worked, only to
      > bring back the principles of *why* some of those computing best-
      > practices arose over the years and provide a system of them to those
      > who were clueless but eager to learn (like me). And if there is
      > questioning, it is aimed at some of the assumptions of what can and
      > cannot be done with the advances in languages and computing speed
      > that we have at our disposal (think: build times, refactoring
      > browsers, test-automation, multiple build machines, etc.) Mix in a
      > healthy dose of skepticism concerning the corporate love affair with
      > communication via technology for its own sake (not for the real needs
      > and advantages it brings) and a strong sense of the value of
      > collaboration over hierarchy, and you have pretty much every
      > contention XP has to offer -- except impatience for the lazy slobs
      > and charlatans who nobody really wants around anyway.
      >
      > (quoting Jerry Weinberg:)
      >
      >>It may not be relevant, but thanks for the reference. To me, it's
      >>relevant because it shows that extreme things may take 30 years or
      >>more even to reach the level of CACM, which wasn't open to anything
      >>about egoless programming 30 years ago.
      >>
      >
      > Jerry is IMO the most visionary writer in our field. 30 years from
      > now there will be another one of his quotes (hopefully issued by him
      > at the time) that shows another "radical" idea that was in plain view
      > for all to see in one of his books for 60 years. Such is the nature
      > of us human beings.
      >
      > Look on the bright side, if it could be solved, we wouldn't have
      > anything to do. :-)
      >
      > Best,
      > Bill
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 4
      > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:29:21 -0800
      > From: "Charlie Poole" <cpoole@...>
      > Subject: RE: Book sequence (was: xp minifaq)
      >
      > Kevin wrote:
      >
      >
      >>I would move "In Practice" up at least one notch. It is a great
      >>narrative of a team attempting to use XP principles (mostly
      >>with success, but not without difficulty). It allows someone who
      >>has never experienced XP to understand the rhythm and flow of XP.
      >>
      >
      > This may depend on the audience. People who are accustomed to doing
      > more complex projects may not be able to appreciate the value of this
      > simple example when they first start looking at XP. At least I wasn't.
      >
      > Charlie Poole
      > cpoole@...
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 5
      > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:45:50 -0600
      > From: wecaputo@...
      > Subject: Re: Re: Fragile Methods? (rant time)
      >
      >
      > Me:
      >
      >>>Many very experienced (and I am guessing) successful professional
      >>>programmers (ala Weinberg) use these types of approaches (or feel they
      >>>
      > do
      >
      >>>which is the same thing) and act as if they think that agilists are
      >>>attacking their process, and so by extension them.
      >>>
      >
      > C. Keith Ray:
      >
      >>On the archives of Gerald M. Weinberb's SHAPE forum, I found the following
      >>quotable bits:
      >>
      >
      > (quotes snipped)
      >
      > Exactly my point. Great examples of true professionals in the spirit of
      > Jerry's "Understanding the Professional Programmer" who initially felt that
      > XP was anti-their approach -- and why not? The whole computer world seemed
      > to dive into hack and fix chaos during the dot com boom, why not a
      > fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants process that sanctified an attitude to go
      > along with the legion of snow boarders and skate-rats hired to do the work.
      >
      > It is human nature to avoid change if we don't have a need. If you aren't
      > seeking, by definition you aren't looking for new ideas. Different is a
      > distraction at best (redundant, or unnecessary) and threatening at worse
      > (you *want* the status quo if it is working for you). It just turns out
      > that these guys largely see themselves in XP -- when they look.
      >
      > But you know what? The name wasn't meant for them, it was meant for the
      > seekers. And as it got their attention I say it did its job. Nowadays, I
      > simply call it "our approach", I don't care what name I use. When I need
      > to, I either just say XP or extreme programming, and sometimes agile, but
      > mostly I just tell (and show) people what we do, and they are too busy
      > going gaga over automated Story Testing and CruiseControl to care about
      > names.
      >
      > Keeping in mind Dale's observation that XP seems anti-CMM and RUP, and my
      > contention that it is simply anti-failed process however manifested, I
      > think it is very important to remember that XP doesn't make any sense in a
      > vacuum. It *is* a response to heavy process, but mainly because that stuff
      > was (and is) being misapplied in the IT shops today.
      >
      > CMM maturity is a long way off when you have 7 programmers with 6 years
      > experience combined, for whom testing is something they did in high school,
      > and integration means mailing dll's to the one with the most chutzpah
      > (which is why he is the lead). Meanwhile their encouraging but
      > inexperienced (at best) managers are telling the execs the "team" (sitting
      > in cubes on two floors) is a crack-squad of web developers (the best money
      > can buy for $35,000 US a year) and they will have that multi-tier,
      > real-time, legacy integrated, portaled, queued, threaded, COM-enabled,
      > web-enabled, .Net ready, J2EE compatible, Oracle-aware, mission-critical, 6
      > sigma, EAI system ready to go in four months, no problem since the
      > corporate architect already has the design finished -- if only the damn
      > users would shut up and sign off on the specs instead of changing their
      > minds all the time.
      >
      > IMO It was never the goal of XP to knock out what worked, only to bring
      > back the principles of *why* some of those computing best-practices arose
      > over the years and provide a system of them to those who were clueless but
      > eager to learn (like me). And if there is questioning, it is aimed at some
      > of the assumptions of what can and cannot be done with the advances in
      > languages and computing speed that we have at our disposal (think: build
      > times, refactoring browsers, test-automation, multiple build machines,
      > etc.) Mix in a healthy dose of skepticism concerning the corporate love
      > affair with communication via technology for its own sake (not for the real
      > needs and advantages it brings) and a strong sense of the value of
      > collaboration over hierarchy, and you have pretty much every contention XP
      > has to offer -- except impatience for the lazy slobs and charlatans who
      > nobody really wants around anyway.
      >
      > (quoting Jerry Weinberg:)
      >
      >>It may not be relevant, but thanks for the reference. To me, it's
      >>relevant because it shows that extreme things may take 30 years or
      >>more even to reach the level of CACM, which wasn't open to anything
      >>about egoless programming 30 years ago.
      >>
      >
      > Jerry is IMO the most visionary writer in our field. 30 years from now
      > there will be another one of his quotes (hopefully issued by him at the
      > time) that shows another "radical" idea that was in plain view for all to
      > see in one of his books for 60 years. Such is the nature of us human
      > beings.
      >
      > Look on the bright side, if it could be solved, we wouldn't have anything
      > to do. :-)
      >
      > Best,
      > Bill
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 6
      > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:52:22 -0600
      > From: "Kyle Cordes" <kyle@...>
      > Subject: Re: Re: cons of XP -- fixed bid contracts and "external" interfaces
      >
      >
      >>>Here's a more cynical perspective. It will put you in a worse
      >>>
      >
      >>>you will continue to collect. :-) (large smile, I certainly don't
      >>>recommend this if you value your relationships with customers!)
      >>>
      >
      >
      >>If the money truly ran out, what are you negotiating?
      >>
      >>Your reputation is certainly better the more business value you
      >>
      > deliver before the
      >
      >>creek runs dry, which I suppose does put you in a better position to
      >>
      > negotiate once the
      >
      >>rains return.
      >>
      >
      > Yes, I agree completely, which is why I made it clear twice (with the
      > smiley, and the words "large smile") that it was a tongue-in-cheek
      > remark. XP-ish development results in more value to the customer
      > sooner, which is good for everyone involved.
      >
      > I spoke of a ficitious scenario, in which a customer is "forced" to keep
      > spending beyond their budget, because the budget is spent, there is
      > little software delivered, and there is a vague promise that with some
      > more spending, deliverables are just around the corner... deliverables
      > which are badly needed, which is why the project was started in the
      > first place.
      >
      >
      > [ Kyle Cordes * kyle@... * http://kylecordes.com ]
      > [ Consulting, Training, and Software development tips and ]
      > [ techniques: Java, Delphi, ASTA, BDE Alternatives Guide, ]
      > [ JB Open Tools, EJB, Web applications, methodologies, etc. ]
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 7
      > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:48:49 -0600
      > From: wecaputo@...
      > Subject: Re: Re: Fragile Methods? (rant time)
      >
      >
      >
      >>>(After a moment of stunned silence, the rowdy locals turn back to their
      >>>pints. Their banter somewhat subdued (with occasional comments meant to
      >>>
      > be
      >
      >>>just not quite overheard by the grizzled veteran in the dark corner of
      >>>
      > the
      >
      >>>bar ) their topic turns to the many nuances of automated testing
      >>>strategies. As the band begins playing again, the nervous out-of-towners
      >>>wonder at the veteran's sudden decorum, recalling his strange jig and
      >>>
      > bawdy
      >
      >>>song just hours earlier...)
      >>>
      >>Bite this, you recidivist phasist pig!
      >>
      >>Ron Jeffries
      >>
      >
      > :-D
      >
      > This made me go look up recidivist (and it said to recidivate). Turning to
      > recidivate: "going back to previous particularly criminal behavior" -- is
      > this a reference to our bar regulars going back to their pints or to my
      > going back to my old ways of starting insightful discussions on this list?
      >
      > As to the phasist comment:
      >
      > I am only a phasist on Tuesdays. Or when there are six progammers -- except
      > if only one person is left handed, and then I do both. We're halfway there
      > with two phases but three phases forces us to remove a programmer. That
      > programmer has to become an analyst or an architect to get back on the team
      > except at night when he must become a tester, or a manager. It's good if
      > another programmer is added but after 6 pm, he must go to another project.
      > If it's 6 am though, we get two programmers. The object of this process is
      > to create a super phase but the odds against that happening are
      > astronomical. The last phase is called a kronk...
      >
      > Best,
      > Bill
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 8
      > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 00:17:39 -0500
      > From: Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>
      > Subject: Re: Bill Rate with Pair Programming
      >
      > Around Thursday, February 28, 2002, 12:09:17 AM, Glen B. Alleman wrote:
      >
      >
      >>You're related to that French judge aren't you ;>)
      >>
      >
      > No, I'm related to someone who recognizes that you can't disprove
      > items from one of your columns by reference to another column.
      >
      > Ron Jeffries
      > www.XProgramming.com
      > Speculation or experimentation - which is more likely to give the correct answer?
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 9
      > Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:53:24 -0700
      > From: "Glen B. Alleman" <galleman@...>
      > Subject: RE: Bill Rate with Pair Programming
      >
      > You're going to have to be more specific than that. To what columns are you
      > referring?
      >
      >
      >>-----Original Message-----
      >>From: Ron Jeffries [mailto:ronjeffries@...]
      >>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 10:18 PM
      >>To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      >>Subject: Re: [XP] Bill Rate with Pair Programming
      >>
      >>
      >>Around Thursday, February 28, 2002, 12:09:17 AM, Glen B. Alleman wrote:
      >>
      >>
      >>>You're related to that French judge aren't you ;>)
      >>>
      >>No, I'm related to someone who recognizes that you can't disprove
      >>items from one of your columns by reference to another column.
      >>
      >>Ron Jeffries
      >>www.XProgramming.com
      >>Speculation or experimentation - which is more likely to give the
      >>correct answer?
      >>
      >>
      >>To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
      >>
      >>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      >>extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
      >>
      >>ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
      >>
      >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 10
      > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:39:53 -0000
      > From: "gorowitch" <gorowitch@...>
      > Subject: Re: When to refactor?
      >
      >
      >>Should you refactor as soon as you choose a task, before starting to
      >>write tests?
      >>
      >
      > Sometimes ... as refactoring might simplify the task.
      >
      >
      >>Should you refactor as soon as you write the tests, before starting
      >>
      > to
      >
      >>code?
      >>
      >
      > Sometimes ... as refactoring might simplify the tests you need to
      > write.
      >
      >
      >>Should you refactor in the middle, before a test passes, even if
      >>you understand the code enough to implement your task? Wouldn't
      >>
      > that
      >
      >>just be distracting / YAGNI?
      >>
      >>
      >
      > Sometimes ... whenever the refactorings helps to understand the task.
      > (comment the test that doesn't pass out, then refactor, then
      > reintegrate the test and only then resume implementing the task )
      >
      > Question: If you understand the code enough to implement the task then
      > why doesn't the test pass ?
      >
      > Remark: If you remember which hat you are wearing refactoring won't
      > be distracting you while implementing.
      >
      >
      >>Most contentiously, should you refactor immediately *after* the
      >>
      > tests
      >
      >>pass -- or even after *each* test, as Bill Wake recommended in his
      >>TFC?
      >>
      >>
      >
      > Sometimes ... whenever you see a chance to improve the readability,
      > design of the code at an almost zero cost you should.
      >
      > Kind Regards,
      > Sven
      >
      >
      >>Curator of Stinky Art Collective http://www.stinky.com/
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 11
      > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:14:55 +0100
      > From: "Laurent Bossavit" <laurent@...>
      > Subject: RE: Bill Rate with Pair Programming
      >
      >
      >>Now using a "simple" taxonomy for knowledge and knowing one would have
      >>the following:
      >>
      >
      > I don't think it's very useful to draw taxonomies of knowledge. (It's
      > interesting, but it won't help to answer the questions you're asking.)
      > You're already square into epistemology - knowledge about how we
      > come to have knowledge. The paradox is that epistemology doesn't
      > ground knowledge itself...
      >
      >
      >>Now which of the ways of "knowing" is appropriate for things like PP,
      >>
      >
      > I'd ask who needs to know what about pair programming, and how
      > they might come to learn these things... I wouldn't worry too much
      > about how they knew them once they had learned them.
      >
      > You *don't* usually hit your thumb with a hammer. You *don't*
      > usually try to square the circle. It doesn't matter how you came by
      > the knowledge that either of these two activities is unrewarding;
      > what matters is that you don't do them.
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 12
      > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:23:13 +0100
      > From: "Laurent Bossavit" <laurent@...>
      > Subject: Re: Bill Rate with Pair Programming
      >
      >
      >>No, they're different. I trust the pain in my thumb more than I trust
      >>information that I have to interpret through some mental model.
      >>
      >
      > You think you're not interpreting the pain in your thumb through
      > some mental model ?
      >
      > I feel OK about trusting some kinds of information (e.g. pain) more
      > than others (e.g. what I think I know about the code I just wrote), but
      > I no longer believe I do so on the basis of "more direct access".
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 13
      > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:38:13 +0100
      > From: "Laurent Bossavit" <laurent@...>
      > Subject: On wanting success (was Re: cons of XP -- on "success")
      >
      >
      >>I believe that the big issue against XP is /not/ that some people
      >>don't want the kind of success that we offer. I believe that it is
      >>people who /do/ want the kind of success that we offer, and through
      >>honest ignorance or honest disagreement, do not believe that our
      >>process is the best way to get that success.
      >>
      >
      > Ah, perfect summation.
      >
      > I want to agree with you, Ron. But I've known people (my boss for
      > instance) to say, and do, things for which the most charitable, the
      > most plausible interpretation *I* could find was that they did not want
      > the kind of success we offer.
      >
      > But maybe "want" is the word at issue. I've been a smoker for many
      > years. I always knew it was a serious health problem, so under one
      > meaning of the term I've always "wanted" to quit. Nevertheless,
      > though I didn't "want" to I was smoking a pack a day or so.
      >
      > I could *claim* I value my health and a long life, but my actions belie
      > that claim. My de facto objective, as my friends and family (or the
      > non-smokers among them) observe with some puzzlement, appears
      > to be a reduction of my life span.
      >
      > Honest ignorance or honest disagreement can *not* enter into this,
      > since I know and agree that smoking is bad for my health.
      >
      >
      >>And I think that saying folks who don't like XP don't want success is a
      >>bad sales tactic even if it's true. And I think it isn't generally
      >>true.
      >>
      >
      > It's not even a matter of his not liking XP - he likes it a lot, and thinks
      > I'm mostly wrong in what I believe XP to be. (He's probably right at
      > that.)
      >
      > I honestly don't know how to explain that someone will split a team
      > in 2, agreeing that it reduces the team's effectiveness, and justify
      > the decision by saying "it's a management decision"... other than by
      > assuming that their de facto objective isn't success as XP defines it.
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 14
      > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:50:13 +0100
      > From: "Laurent Bossavit" <laurent@...>
      > Subject: Re: Re: Fragile Methods? (rant time)
      >
      >
      >>Jerry is IMO the most visionary writer in our field. 30 years from now
      >>there will be another one of his quotes (hopefully issued by him at
      >>the time) that shows another "radical" idea that was in plain view for
      >>all to see in one of his books for 60 years. Such is the nature of us
      >>human beings.
      >>
      >
      > I can even think of one such offhand.
      >
      > At the beginning of QSM1, "Systems Thinking", he avers that he
      > was originally going to be putting lots and lots of detailed systems
      > models in the book so that managers could see what various
      > software processes felt like and choose which was right for them
      > based on their particular circumstances.
      >
      > Then, says Jerry, he realized that these would be useless to most
      > software firms given their current cultural pattern, so it was best to
      > just cover the basics. The models *will* be useful to the next
      > generation. I think they'll be something like Senge's Microworlds.
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 15
      > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 05:09:08 -0500
      > From: Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>
      > Subject: Re: On wanting success (was Re: cons of XP -- on "success")
      >
      > Around Thursday, February 28, 2002, 4:38:13 AM, Laurent Bossavit wrote:
      >
      >
      >>I honestly don't know how to explain that someone will split a team
      >>in 2, agreeing that it reduces the team's effectiveness, and justify
      >>the decision by saying "it's a management decision"... other than by
      >>assuming that their de facto objective isn't success as XP defines it.
      >>
      >
      > Are you suggesting that his purpose does not include delivering
      > software successfully from both teams? I bet it does. I bet he has
      > some additional purpose in mind as well. It might even be possible to
      > get him to explain it, by asking and listening. (And it might not.)
      >
      > Ron Jeffries
      > www.XProgramming.com
      > I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's;
      > I will not reason and compare; my business is to create. --William Blake
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 16
      > Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 07:29:56 -0500
      > From: Bill Tozier <bill@...>
      > Subject: Re: RE: cons of XP
      >
      > On or about 2/27/02, Phlip wrote something like:
      >
      >
      >>The alternatives - Code-n-Fix, Cowboy, Waterfall, Spiral, Chief Programmer
      >>Team - have been shown in practice to be much higher risk in science than
      >>they are in business.
      >>
      >
      > I would like to know where this has been shown in print, in addition
      > to practice.
      >
      > T
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.