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

Re: [XP] Re: Code Complete on XP

Expand Messages
  • yahoogroups@jhrothjr.com
    ... From: Jeff Grigg To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 147 , Oct 15, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jeff Grigg" <jeffgrigg.at.charter.net@...>
      To: "extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com"
      Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:19 PM
      Subject: [XP] Re: Code Complete on XP

      > --- Chris Hanson <cmh@b...> wrote:
      > > In other words, perhaps after running an initial Planning
      > > Game, it turns out that there wouldn't be any return on
      > > further investment, or the return would be too far out.
      > > At that point, you've got a successful project that
      > > shipped the null product.
      > I was on a project building a class registration system. A highly
      > *Politically Influential* user was demanding that we expand the
      > scope of our project to cover her vendor management reports. (We
      > didn't want to do this, but eventually resolved that we didn't have
      > the political clout to refuse her demands.)
      > So we started up a "Big Analysis Up-Front" analysis phase. We
      > investigated what was needed, who used it, what they used it for,
      > etc.
      > We found that there was no business need for what she wanted. (The
      > reports, apparently, were a leftover from a long forgotten political
      > battle between departments -- that they had lost. ;-)
      > So our "deliverable" was this statement:
      > "Stop doing that."
      > And this deliverable proved to be remarkably valuable to our
      > customer. It freed resources for more productive work. Everyone
      > was happy.
      > Result:
      > - Substantial business value.
      > - Zero lines of code.
      > - One line of process specifications.
      > ("Stop doing that.")

      Definite chuckle on that one! It mostly goes to show that we
      do lots of things that we can't really call software development,
      and your "big analysis phase" is certainly one of them. I'd call it
      a systems study myself, although there's a lot to be said for
      calling it a feasibility study or a system exploration.

      Whatever it is, it's what you do before you start developing
      software. If we really want to put it into the XP context of
      "you customer, me developer," we could call it business

      John Roth
      > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • 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
        Please state the nature of the development emergency. -- Ryan Ripley
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.