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

Re: [XP] Re: Code Complete on XP

Expand Messages
  • Phlip
    ... It s okay, Ron. We are safe here. Edward Berard and Costin Cozianu can t get to you. -- Phlip http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?TestFirstUserInterfaces
    Message 1 of 147 , Oct 11, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > Ron Jeffries wrote:
      >
      > >> XP in its current form thinks up-front design adds risk.
      >
      > > Wrong. XP thinks /too much/ up-front design adds risk.
      >
      > Apologies. I should not have said "wrong" even if I was thinking it.

      It's okay, Ron. We are safe here. Edward Berard and Costin Cozianu can't get
      to you.

      --
      Phlip
      http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?TestFirstUserInterfaces
    • Ron Jeffries
      ... I understand that you encountered people who think they understand the big version better. Now please move on to the questions I asked. ;- Ron Jeffries
      Message 147 of 147 , Oct 20, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Monday, October 20, 2003, at 1:00:25 AM, Brad Appleton wrote:

        > On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:41:29AM -0400, Ron Jeffries wrote:
        >> How do you know that "there are a lot of people" for whom strict linear
        >> flow is in fact easier? What metrics of comparative performance on code
        >> creation, code maintenance, and code debugging were collected on these
        >> people?

        > I met a lot of people and have spoken with a lot of people
        > who have looked at the same two pieces of code and said the
        > other one was easier and simpler in their mind. one piece
        > of code was ~10 routines of ~10 lines each. The other was a
        > single ~100 line routine. In both cases the language was C++
        > (uh oh :-) and while myself and others I know and respect felt
        > the more modular version was more maintainable, there were at
        > least as many or more who felt the single "all in one place"
        > was easier for them to follow to figure out what's going on
        > and follow/trace the flow.

        > They didn't just look at the two versions either. They actually
        > had to do testing and support and possibly debugging/tracing
        > for each one. They always preferred tracing the "linear
        > version" because they didn't have to keep the control flow
        > and the (what I would today call) System Metaphor in their
        > head. They didn't feel they needed to know the overall stuff,
        > just the details. And they felt that all the modularity and
        > encapsulation hid the details from them (imagine that :-)
        > and they considered it more complex and less maintainable for
        > them to support and deploy as a result.

        > I didn't agree with them of course, but I did feel I at least
        > understood where they were coming from and why they might feel
        > that way. And there seemed to be more of them then I had ever
        > imagined possible at the time :(

        I understand that you encountered people who think they understand the big
        version better. Now please move on to the questions I asked. ;->

        Ron Jeffries
        www.XProgramming.com
        Please state the nature of the development emergency. -- Ryan Ripley
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.