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

Re: [XP] An XP Detector?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    ... So a team that does test-last and refactoring, instead of test-driven, and that gets high coverage ... is doing Scrum? ... I take it that you re saying
    Message 1 of 74 , Jul 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thursday, July 1, 2004, at 10:40:37 AM, yahoogroups@... wrote:

      > From: "Ron Jeffries" <jeffries.at.dundee.net@...>
      > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 7:20 AM
      > Subject: [XP] An XP Detector?


      >> On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, at 4:34:54 PM, John Roth wrote:
      >>
      >> > Code that doesn't have tests which have statement and branch coverage in
      >> > the 90% plus range simply wasn't written with TDD, which means that the
      >> > development methodology wasn't XP, regardless of any claims to the
      >> > contrary.
      >>
      >> This is a pretty strong statement. I'm not here to disagree with it, but
      > to
      >> explore it. I offer these starting questions:
      >>
      >> To what extent is TDD that critical to XP?

      > Since TDD subsumes both test first and refactoring, I'd say
      > it's central to the software engineering part of XP, and
      > without the software engineering part of XP, what you've
      > got is Scrum.

      So a team that does test-last and refactoring, instead of test-driven, and
      that gets high coverage ... is doing Scrum?

      >> To what extent is high test coverage critical to XP?

      > I wouldn't call it critical, it's just that it's a demonstrated
      > result of applying TDD correctly.

      I take it that you're saying that /if/ there's low coverage, /then/ they
      didn't do TDD, and /then/ it cannot be XP? Am I understanding you
      correctly?

      >> And the perennial: what does it mean to say that a team's actual practices
      >> are, or are not, XP?

      > So you know what you're talking about.

      I am asking for the meaning of the phrase: "this team's actual practices
      are [or are not] XP".

      To make myself clear:
      I don't find that question useful;
      I suspect that it is without useful meaning;
      and for sure when people say it I don't know what /they/ are talking
      about.

      I'm not sure it's important, but I feel that it is.

      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      Just because XP doesn't talk about how to make fire, should we assume it
      requires us to use sticks? -- Richard MacDonald
    • J. B. Rainsberger
      ... You are absolutely right. The values are not enough, but neither are the practices. I suppose we need to be calibrated to both. That said, my whole picture
      Message 74 of 74 , Jul 11, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        banshee858 wrote:

        >>>A "true XP Detector" would be calibrated to the four values, not
        >>>the 12 practices.
        >>
        >>Let me be Uncle Bob for a moment...
        >>
        >>NO!
        >>
        >>An AGILE detector would be calibrated to the four values; but
        >>without practices consistent with the values, it's just all talk.
        >>An XP detector would be calibrated to how /well/ you /are able/ to
        >>do the practices.
        >
        > I am going to have to disagree with you here. IMO, if you use the
        > practices, but do not value the values, then what you are doing is
        > going through the motions without any consideration of why.

        You are absolutely right. The values are not enough, but neither are the
        practices. I suppose we need to be calibrated to both.

        That said, my whole picture of "what XP is" -- for whatever that picture
        might be worth -- has changed drastically in the last little while, so
        I'm going to beg your leave from this discussion for the time being and
        wait for the swimming in my head to stop.
        --
        J. B. Rainsberger,
        Diaspar Software Services
        http://www.diasparsoftware.com :: +1 416 791-8603
        Let's write software that people understand
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.