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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: (unknown)

Expand Messages
  • Tobias Mayer
    I care. Because doing XP is a big turn off to many people; often, exactly because of all the hype. But unit testing, or adopting test driven development,
    Message 1 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I care.  Because "doing XP" is a big turn off to many people; often, exactly because of all the hype.  But unit testing, or adopting test driven development, or automating the build process, or improving one's refactoring practices (etc.) well, those things usually make sense to people - and they are willing to do them - adopting XP a slice at a time, as it were.  So yes, it is important for developers to know that these practices are older than XP, that they preceded the branding.  That way they can be discussed on their own merits.  Don't throw away history for the sake of marketing.
      Tobias (not a brand fan)
       

      Jef L Newsom <jef@...> wrote:
      I was wondering the same thing. Is there a concern that the brand
      diminishes the value somehow? The simple fact is that they *are* XP
      engineering practices, since XP brands them as such, "The engineering
      practices that compose XP." And they *are* just engineering practices,
      too. I personally don't care what they're called -- they're good tools
      to have in your box.

      Jef

      JOEY: ... Go to China. Eat Chinese food.
      CHANDLER: Course there, they just call it "food."


      -----Original Message-----
      From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Jeffries
      Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:36 AM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: (unknown)

      On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 10:34:06 AM, woynam wrote:

      > I will keep repeating this until the day I die.

      >   They are *not* XP engineering practices.

      Why is this important to you?

      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
      The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
      is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.



      To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
      Yahoo! Groups Links






    • woynam
      Because in many organizations, if you mention the word XP , you ll have the door shut in your face. If you talk about utilizing proven engineering practices,
      Message 2 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Because in many organizations, if you mention the word "XP", you'll
        have the door shut in your face.

        If you talk about utilizing proven engineering practices, possibly
        adopted piecemeal when necessary, you may be allowed to continue talking.

        Mark

        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
        <ronjeffries@X...> wrote:
        >
        > On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 10:34:06 AM, woynam wrote:
        >
        > > I will keep repeating this until the day I die.
        >
        > > They are *not* XP engineering practices.
        >
        > Why is this important to you?
        >
        > Ron Jeffries
        > www.XProgramming.com
        > Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
        > The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
        > is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.
        >
      • Stephen J. Bobick
        ... Maybe because they associate XP with catastrophic destruction and ashes (but no Phoenix). I wonder where they would get such an idea from? ;-) -- S
        Message 3 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          >From: woynam <woyna@...>
          >Because in many organizations, if you mention the word "XP", you'll
          >have the door shut in your face.

          Maybe because they associate "XP" with "catastrophic" destruction and "ashes" (but no Phoenix).

          I wonder where they would get such an idea from?

          ;-)

          -- S
        • Jef L Newsom
          It s dysfunctional all the way down in some organizations. Refactoring == No forethought Pair Programming == Half-productive || Incompetent when solo
          Message 4 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            It's dysfunctional all the way down in some organizations.

            Refactoring == No forethought
            Pair Programming == Half-productive || Incompetent when solo
            Collective Ownership == No individual accountability
            Test-driven design == cowboy code slinger
            ...

            Either way, it's a lot of work.


            -----Original Message-----
            From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
            [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of woynam
            Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 2:24 PM
            To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: (unknown)


            Because in many organizations, if you mention the word "XP", you'll
            have the door shut in your face.

            If you talk about utilizing proven engineering practices, possibly
            adopted piecemeal when necessary, you may be allowed to continue
            talking.

            Mark

            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
            <ronjeffries@X...> wrote:
            >
            > On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 10:34:06 AM, woynam wrote:
            >
            > > I will keep repeating this until the day I die.
            >
            > > They are *not* XP engineering practices.
            >
            > Why is this important to you?
            >
            > Ron Jeffries
            > www.XProgramming.com
            > Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
            > The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
            > is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.
            >







            To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
            To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Ron Jeffries
            ... I don t know, because Tobias, who introduced the term, has just come out against XP, while I, who actually do support XP, suggested that the term wasn t
            Message 5 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 3:30:43 PM, Stephen J. Bobick wrote:

              >>From: woynam <woyna@...>
              >>Because in many organizations, if you mention the word "XP", you'll
              >>have the door shut in your face.

              > Maybe because they associate "XP" with "catastrophic" destruction and "ashes" (but no Phoenix).

              > I wonder where they would get such an idea from?

              I don't know, because Tobias, who introduced the term, has just
              come out against XP, while I, who actually do support XP, suggested
              that the term wasn't ideal for most listeners.

              Most peculiar, Mama.

              Ron Jeffries
              www.XProgramming.com
              Hope is not a strategy. -- Michael Henos
            • Tobias Mayer
              Embrace paradox. T. Ron Jeffries wrote: ... I don t know, because Tobias, who introduced the term, has just come out against XP,
              Message 6 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Embrace paradox.
                T.

                Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
                On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 3:30:43 PM, Stephen J. Bobick wrote:

                >>From: woynam <woyna@...>
                >>Because in many organizations, if you mention the word "XP", you'll
                >>have the door shut in your face.

                > Maybe because they associate "XP" with "catastrophic" destruction and "ashes" (but no Phoenix).

                > I wonder where they would get such an idea from?

                I don't know, because Tobias, who introduced the term, has just
                come out against XP, while I, who actually do support XP, suggested
                that the term wasn't ideal for most listeners.

                Most peculiar, Mama.

                Ron Jeffries
                www.XProgramming.com
                Hope is not a strategy. -- Michael Henos


                To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...



              • Ron Jeffries
                ... Look, two ducks! Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake
                Message 7 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 6:06:02 PM, Tobias Mayer wrote:

                  > Embrace paradox.

                  Look, two ducks!

                  Ron Jeffries
                  www.XProgramming.com
                  Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire.
                  He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to
                  light - Howard Roark (The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand)
                • kipkruide
                  ... wrote: Solution seems simple then does it not, don t use the term xp, after all it is the results that count. Though in my peculiar world of humour it
                  Message 8 of 26 , Dec 2, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Mayer <tobyanon@y...>
                    wrote:

                    Solution seems simple then does it not, don't use the term xp, after
                    all it is the results that count.

                    Though in my peculiar world of humour it would be fun to tell the
                    execs they've been doing xp for the last year, just to see the look on
                    their faces.

                    >
                    > I care. Because "doing XP" is a big turn off to many people; often,
                    exactly because of all the hype. But unit testing, or adopting test
                    driven development, or automating the build process, or improving
                    one's refactoring practices (etc.) well, those things usually make
                    sense to people - and they are willing to do them - adopting XP a
                    slice at a time, as it were. So yes, it is important for developers
                    to know that these practices are older than XP, that they preceded the
                    branding. That way they can be discussed on their own merits. Don't
                    throw away history for the sake of marketing.
                    > Tobias (not a brand fan)
                    >
                    >
                    > Jef L Newsom <jef@i...> wrote:
                    > I was wondering the same thing. Is there a concern that the brand
                    > diminishes the value somehow? The simple fact is that they *are* XP
                    > engineering practices, since XP brands them as such, "The engineering
                    > practices that compose XP." And they *are* just engineering practices,
                    > too. I personally don't care what they're called -- they're good tools
                    > to have in your box.
                    >
                    > Jef
                    >
                    > JOEY: ... Go to China. Eat Chinese food.
                    > CHANDLER: Course there, they just call it "food."
                    >
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Jeffries
                    > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:36 AM
                    > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: (unknown)
                    >
                    > On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 10:34:06 AM, woynam wrote:
                    >
                    > > I will keep repeating this until the day I die.
                    >
                    > > They are *not* XP engineering practices.
                    >
                    > Why is this important to you?
                    >
                    > Ron Jeffries
                    > www.XProgramming.com
                    > Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
                    > The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
                    > is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
                    > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
                    > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > SPONSORED LINKS
                    > Scrum
                    >
                    > ---------------------------------
                    > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                    >
                    >
                    > Visit your group "scrumdevelopment" on the web.
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                    Service.
                    >
                    >
                    > ---------------------------------
                    >
                  • Steven Gordon
                    I like to use the term agile software development. It avoids both the turn offs and brand name issues. It also affords a little more freedom to adapt to the
                    Message 9 of 26 , Dec 2, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I like to use the term agile software development.
                       
                      It avoids both the turn offs and brand name issues.  It also affords a little more freedom to adapt to the specific project and cultural context.
                       
                      I still acknowledging borrowing whatever makes sense in any paricular situation from XP, Scrum, Lean, RAD, MDA, etc. (even if they borrowed it from something else).

                       
                      On 12/2/05, kipkruide <nlv14041@...> wrote:
                      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Mayer < tobyanon@y...>
                      wrote:

                      Solution seems simple then does it not, don't use the term xp, after
                      all it is the results that count.

                      Though in my peculiar world of humour it would be fun to tell the
                      execs they've been doing xp for the last year, just to see the look on
                      their faces.

                      >
                      > I care.  Because "doing XP" is a big turn off to many people; often,
                      exactly because of all the hype.  But unit testing, or adopting test
                      driven development, or automating the build process, or improving
                      one's refactoring practices (etc.) well, those things usually make
                      sense to people - and they are willing to do them - adopting XP a
                      slice at a time, as it were.  So yes, it is important for developers
                      to know that these practices are older than XP, that they preceded the
                      branding.  That way they can be discussed on their own merits.  Don't
                      throw away history for the sake of marketing.
                      > Tobias (not a brand fan)
                      >
                      >
                      > Jef L Newsom <jef@i...> wrote:
                      > I was wondering the same thing. Is there a concern that the brand
                      > diminishes the value somehow? The simple fact is that they *are* XP
                      > engineering practices, since XP brands them as such, "The engineering
                      > practices that compose XP." And they *are* just engineering practices,
                      > too. I personally don't care what they're called -- they're good tools
                      > to have in your box.
                      >
                      > Jef
                      >
                      > JOEY: ... Go to China. Eat Chinese food.
                      > CHANDLER: Course there, they just call it "food."
                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Ron Jeffries
                      > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:36 AM
                      > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: (unknown)
                      >
                      > On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 10:34:06 AM, woynam wrote:
                      >
                      > > I will keep repeating this until the day I die.
                      >
                      > >   They are *not* XP engineering practices.
                      >
                      > Why is this important to you?
                      >
                      > Ron Jeffries
                      > www.XProgramming.com
                      > Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
                      > The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
                      > is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.

                    • Ilja Preuss
                      ... To me, a practice being an XP practice just means that it is part of what XP teams do. It doesn t mean that the practice didn t exist before XP. What it
                      Message 10 of 26 , Dec 2, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                        > I care. Because "doing XP" is a big turn off to many people; often,
                        > exactly because of all the hype. But unit testing, or adopting test
                        > driven development, or automating the build process, or improving
                        > one's refactoring practices (etc.) well, those things usually make
                        > sense to people - and they are willing to do them - adopting XP a
                        > slice at a time, as it were. So yes, it is important for developers
                        > to know that these practices are older than XP, that they preceded
                        > the branding. That way they can be discussed on their own merits.
                        > Don't throw away history for the sake of marketing. Tobias (not a
                        > brand fan)

                        To me, a practice being an XP practice just means that it is part of what XP
                        teams do. It doesn't mean that the practice didn't exist before XP.

                        What it might well mean is that the practice was far less well known before
                        it became part of the "XP brand", that it therefore gets connected to XP by
                        many people. Frankly, I'm not sure that a mostly unknown practice is less
                        hard to propagate than a hyped practice.

                        With XP, people don't like to try Pair Programming because it's part of the
                        "XP hype". I'd wager that without XP the same people wouldn't want to try it
                        because they'd never have heart about someone doing it at all. I'd even
                        wager that in many cases the *real* reason for the rejection of the practice
                        is something else. Blaming XP might just hold you from addressing the real
                        causes.

                        Cheers, Ilja
                      • Tobias Mayer
                        ... A good point, and possibly true in many cases. However, the introduction of we should try pair-proramming because it is one of the 12 XP practices and we
                        Message 11 of 26 , Dec 2, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ilja wrote:
                          > With XP, people don't like to try Pair Programming because it's part of the "XP hype". I'd wager that without XP the same people wouldn't want to try it because they'd never have heart about someone doing it at all. I'd even wager that in many cases the *real* reason for the rejection of the practice is something else. Blaming XP might just hold you from addressing the real causes.
                           
                          A good point, and possibly true in many cases.  However, the introduction of "we should try pair-proramming because it is one of the 12 XP practices and we should be doing XP" (or words to that effect), is probably less useful than an aproach like: "let's remove these cubicle walls so we can communicate more effectively".
                           
                          In my experience, a group of good developers in a shared workspace, will pair program, maybe not 8-hours a day, but enough of the time for it to be beneficial.  It is a natural way to work providing (and this is the key thing) that the culture around them supports - no, encourages risk and failure.  I believe a lot of the resistance to PP is pride, which of course stems from fear.  The fear is that you'll see I don't know something.  I'll be exposed.  My guard will be down, my bonus will be affected...
                           
                          Creating a culture where failure is not only tolerated but celebrated is a better starting point, to my mind, than saying "let's do XP now".
                           
                          Tobias


                          Ilja Preuss <preuss@...> wrote:
                          scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                          > I care.  Because "doing XP" is a big turn off to many people; often,
                          > exactly because of all the hype.  But unit testing, or adopting test
                          > driven development, or automating the build process, or improving
                          > one's refactoring practices (etc.) well, those things usually make
                          > sense to people - and they are willing to do them - adopting XP a
                          > slice at a time, as it were.  So yes, it is important for developers
                          > to know that these practices are older than XP, that they preceded
                          > the branding.  That way they can be discussed on their own merits.
                          > Don't throw away history for the sake of marketing. Tobias (not a
                          > brand fan)       

                          To me, a practice being an XP practice just means that it is part of what XP
                          teams do. It doesn't mean that the practice didn't exist before XP.

                          What it might well mean is that the practice was far less well known before
                          it became part of the "XP brand", that it therefore gets connected to XP by
                          many people. Frankly, I'm not sure that a mostly unknown practice is less
                          hard to propagate than a hyped practice.

                          With XP, people don't like to try Pair Programming because it's part of the
                          "XP hype". I'd wager that without XP the same people wouldn't want to try it
                          because they'd never have heart about someone doing it at all. I'd even
                          wager that in many cases the *real* reason for the rejection of the practice
                          is something else. Blaming XP might just hold you from addressing the real
                          causes.

                          Cheers, Ilja


                        • Greg Akins
                          ... In my experience, a group of good developers in a shared workspace, will pair program, maybe not 8-hours a day, but enough of the time for it to be
                          Message 12 of 26 , Dec 3, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment


                            Tobias Mayer <tobyanon@...> wrote:
                            Ilja wrote:
                            >
                            In my experience, a group of good developers in a shared workspace, will pair program, maybe not 8-hours a day, but enough of the time for it to be beneficial.  It is a natural way to work providing (and this is the key thing) that the culture around them supports - no, encourages risk and failure.  I believe a lot of the resistance to PP is pride, which of course stems from fear.  The fear is that you'll see I don't know something.  I'll be exposed.  My guard will be down, my bonus will be affected...
                             
                            I would love to pair more... But have never been luck enough to be in a shop where anyone else is interested.  However, I find that if I'm just willing to ask other developers to help me work through certain tasks, they're always willing to sit with me for fairly long periods of time. 

                            My experience with that convinces me more that pair programming is a great direction.  Because in every case, I and the other programmer worked through issues more efficiently that either of us would have done individually.

                            Speaking to your point about fear and pride.  I think that removing the "pair" stigma, and working with developers that don't have "difficult" egos, combined with open offices and lots of communications makes pairing a natural progression for good programmers even if they don't realize they're doing it.
                          • Ilja Preuss
                            ... Well, yes, of course. I just don t see how calling Pair Programming an XP practice could hold anyone from doing exactly that... Confused, Ilja
                            Message 13 of 26 , Dec 5, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > A good point, and possibly true in many cases. However, the
                              > introduction of "we should try pair-proramming because it is one of
                              > the 12 XP practices and we should be doing XP" (or words to that
                              > effect), is probably less useful than an aproach like: "let's remove
                              > these cubicle walls so we can communicate more effectively".

                              Well, yes, of course. I just don't see how calling Pair Programming an "XP
                              practice" could hold anyone from doing exactly that...

                              Confused, Ilja
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.