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

Re: [XP] Software Mfg. was: XP obstacles

Expand Messages
  • Brad Appleton
    Hi Greg! ... Kind of. I m thinking of the Taylorist view, which is where a lot of those assembly lines came from. More modern manufacturing has actually moved
    Message 1 of 48 , May 1, 2003
      Hi Greg!

      On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 08:03:38AM -0000, gcolson99 wrote:
      > This notion of software production not being 'manufacturing' has
      > appeared in this list and several other places and it threw me
      > initially, because I've always thought software production could be
      > viewed as a type of manufacturing. (At least as I define
      > manufacturing.) But after going back and reading stuff again, I
      > think I get it now. I'm guessing when you say 'manufacturing' you
      > really mean 'assembly lines'.

      Kind of. I'm thinking of the Taylorist view, which is where a lot of those assembly lines came from. More modern manufacturing has actually moved away from that (or so I hear). I feel the CMM was based on the Taylorist view and the MMM (Manufacturing Maturity Model) that treats things as throw-it-over-the-wall assembly lines where the people are plug-replaceable so long as they properly follow /the/ process.

      See the section "Separation of Design from Construction" from Martin Fowler's "The New Methodology" (at www.martinfowler.com) for similar thoughts and the suggestion that the integration+build+qa is the "assembly-line" manufacturing aspect of software (and hence can and should be automated as much as possible) and that programming and design are both creative activities and need to me more unconstrained and collaborative.

      --
      Brad Appleton <brad@...> www.bradapp.net
      Software CM Patterns (www.scmpatterns.com)
      Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration
      "And miles to go before I sleep." -- Robert Frost
    • Steve Berczuk
      ... I agree that the metaphors are not perfect. Metaphors just need to be analogous.... But if you think of the view of Achitecture that Christopher Alexander
      Message 48 of 48 , May 9, 2003
        glenlwood wrote:
        > All these metaphors fall short. I spend most of my days working in
        > high-rise offices. We the final user/customer for the office building
        > are only incidentally thought of when it is constructed. It is built
        > as an empty shell to be furnished and decorated much later for real
        > use. In fact the interior is often being 'refactored' for the
        > changing purposes.
        I agree that the metaphors are not perfect. Metaphors just need to be
        analogous....


        But if you think of the view of Achitecture that Christopher Alexander
        discusses, which is very interactive, or even building a custom house,
        there is a LOT of consideration of the needs of the user (or at least
        the customer).

        > Are the buildings equivalent to the hardware, networks and software
        > that is a given when most of us establish applications to exist
        > within this computing space?

        This leads me to think of an interesting issue: Buildings typically
        survive through many occupants and a long time... Some software does,
        some is made with a particular use in mind (and yet it still lasts a
        LONG TIME...) so the idea of refactoring is important in both building
        construction and software construction.


        --
        Steve Berczuk | steve@... | http://www.berczuk.com
        SCM Patterns: Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration
        www.scmpatterns.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.