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

RE: [XP] Re: Why eXtreme Programming?

Expand Messages
  • Charlie Poole
    Carl, ... Odd that I can agrere with everything and yet not see the connection to the part in parentheses. I ve always believed myself that good work practices
    Message 1 of 161 , Sep 30 11:29 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Carl,

      > >Everything I know about XP goes completely against the
      > >view of programmers as interchangeable, so I'd like to
      > >know what *you* see in it makes it seem like it's
      > >part of the same thing.
      >
      > Well, what about Kent's assertion along the lines of, "I'm not an
      > excellent programmer; I'm an average programmer with excellent
      > habits."? Sorry if I've gotten the words wrong, but I think the
      > sense is right, and I think the implication is that pretty much
      > anyone who adopts the practices (that is to say, interchangeable
      > programmer-units) can excel.

      Odd that I can agrere with everything and yet not see the
      connection to the part in parentheses.

      I've always believed myself that good work practices can make
      anyone better: that applies to the genius-level as well as
      the average. And btw, do you really believe Kent is all that
      average?

      Being able to learn skills is hardly the same as saying we're
      all interchangeable. In fact, in the assembly-line model of
      work, nobody needs to improve there skills except to become
      more efficient in the one little bit of work they perform.

      Charlie Poole
      cpoole@...
      www.pooleconsulting.com
      www.charliepoole.org
    • J. B. Rainsberger
      So said jhrothjr on 2002-10-04 ... better ... quality, ... I knew that; I was just taking advantage of the fact that the productivity change (15%) was the
      Message 161 of 161 , Oct 11, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        So said jhrothjr on 2002-10-04

        >--- In extremeprogramming@y..., "J. B. Rainsberger" <jbr@d...> wrote:
        >> So said Alex Chaffee / Purple Technology on 2002-09-30
        >>
        >> >On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 04:11:39PM -0600, Gee, Joe wrote:
        >> >>
        >> >> Why? Programmers get much more done paired than solo and do
        better
        >> >> work.
        >> >
        >> >Actually, they often get less done paired, but it's of higher
        quality,
        >> >so it pays off in the long run. But anyway, it's not 1/2 as much;
        >> >it's more like 7/8 according to Williams' research.
        >>
        >> And, *of course*, given the cost of change curve on traditional
        >> projects, the 1/8 of defects avoided during implementation means...
        >> (the rest as an exercise to the reader).
        >
        >Hey JB,
        >
        >That 7/8ths was the productivity, not the quality measurement.

        I knew that; I was just taking advantage of the fact that the
        productivity change (15%) was the same as the change in defect rate
        (15%).

        >What Laurie is saying is that if the two programmers would take 100
        staff
        >hours independently, they'd take between 100 and 120 staff hours
        working
        >together.

        Right.

        >The net increase in quality means that the two figures are at
        different
        >quality points, so they can't be strictly compared. It's still a
        somewhat
        >open question about productivity to reach the same quality point.

        Indeed. I simply suggest that the cost of change curve implies that the
        productivity increase from 15% fewer defects must definitely be greater
        than the productivity decrease from 15% more time coding. So if you
        believe in the traditional cost of change curve, you must therefore
        admit that PP is most likely more productive. Elegant, no?

        J. B. Rainsberger,
        President, Diaspar Software Services
        Let's write software that people understand.
        http://www.diasparsoftware.com/
        telephone: +1 416 791-8603
        All correspondence (c) 2002 Diaspar Software Services.
        If you want to use it, just ask; don't steal.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.