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

RE: [XP] Research on social issues

Expand Messages
  • John Lindsey
    ... laws, and they are better understood than those of physics.
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron Jeffries said:

      >>With some others here, I'd deny this. Software does have fundamental
      laws, and they are better understood than those of physics.<<

      OK, I'll bite... :)

      Care to list a few of the fundamental laws of software?

      --
      John Lindsey mailto:nisroc@... http://www.foobox.com/~nisroc
    • Bryan Dollery
      Hi Ron, ... Wow, that s a bold statement - what Laws were you thinking of Ron? ... Cheers, Bryan
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Ron,

        > > Despite all the research done by computer scientists, there is
        > no equivalent
        > > in software for the fundamental laws of physics. This lack of
        > theory, or at
        > > least the lack of practically applicable theories, makes it
        > difficult to do
        > > any reasoning about software without actually building it. By Philippe
        > > Kruchten.
        >
        > With some others here, I'd deny this. Software does have fundamental
        > laws, and they are better understood than those of physics.

        Wow, that's a bold statement - what 'Laws' were you thinking of Ron?

        > And those laws are just as useful to people writing software as the
        > laws of physics are to people building houses.

        :-)

        Cheers,

        Bryan
      • Bryan Dollery
        Hi Guys, ... Why are people here arguing with Kruchten? His conclusion is sound, and is exactly the same conclusion Kent, Ron, Ward, and others reached a few
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Guys,

          > Despite all the research done by computer scientists, there is
          > no equivalent
          > in software for the fundamental laws of physics. This lack of
          > theory, or at
          > least the lack of practically applicable theories, makes it
          > difficult to do
          > any reasoning about software without actually building it. By Philippe
          > Kruchten.

          Why are people here arguing with Kruchten? His conclusion is sound, and is
          exactly the same conclusion Kent, Ron, Ward, and others reached a few years
          ago - that currently the best information we can get about a software
          system is to build it.

          An illogical argument doesn't necessarily lead to the wrong conclusion.

          Cheers,

          Bryan
        • Ron Jeffries
          ... I was thinking, as were other posters, of automata theory, turing machines, and the like. One might want to add in category theory, set theory, number
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Around Thursday, August 1, 2002, 6:01:44 AM, John Lindsey wrote:

            > Care to list a few of the fundamental laws of software?

            I was thinking, as were other posters, of automata theory, turing
            machines, and the like. One might want to add in category theory, set
            theory, number theory, and a bunch of other math stuff.

            As for laws like Newton's, that we learned in grade school, those
            aren't even laws of physics. All the laws of physics are so
            mathematical that I can't understand them.

            Unless Wolfram is right, in which case, I just can't lift the book to
            find out whether I understand it or not.

            Ron Jeffries
            www.XProgramming.com
            Analysis kills spontaneity.
            The grain once ground into flour germinates no more. -- Henri Amiel
          • Ilja Preuß
            ... and frequent releases, I would think. Regards, Ilja ______________________________________________________________________________ ich.bin@cool.ms - nur
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > > * Misunderstandings in requirements interpretation
              >
              > on-site customer; planning game; customer tests.

              and frequent releases, I would think.

              Regards, Ilja
              ______________________________________________________________________________
              ich.bin@... - nur eine der witzigsten E-Mail-Adressen der Welt!
              Interesse? Klicken! http://digitaledienste.web.de/MyAdress/?mc=021104
            • jeffgrigg63132
              ... On the social side, I ll also recommend something Ron recommended to me: The Core Protocol , as described in the book Software for Your Head (ISBN:
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                > Vinicius Manhaes Teles wrote:
                > > [...] research on social issues that affect software development.
                > > [...] social issues among team members and between costumer and
                > > development team. [...]

                --- Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@a...> wrote:
                > I would have said that XP /is/ a method for dealing with social
                > issues, and guiding how issues shall be resolved, socially.

                On the social side, I'll also recommend something Ron recommended to
                me: "The Core Protocol", as described in the book "Software for Your
                Head" (ISBN: 0201604566) and available for download from their web
                site: http://www.mccarthy-tech.com/

                Described briefly, I say that if you want to form teams and make
                them "gell" quickly and consistently, use the Core Protocol. It's
                designed to do that. (Teams that don't "gell" are remarkably
                *IN*effective.)

                I can't claim to have any experience using the Core Protocol /
                Software for Your Head, but it looks very promising to me.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.