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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.

Expand Messages
  • David J. Anderson
    How does the SWEBOK treat RAD? (as it has been around for 10 years or so) and How does SWEBOK relate to PMBOK (if at all)? Glen, When you say this is used for
    Message 1 of 37 , Jun 3, 2003
      How does the SWEBOK treat RAD? (as it has been around
      for 10 years or so)


      How does SWEBOK relate to PMBOK (if at all)?

      Glen, When you say this is used for academic teaching
      do you mean that it is the basis off which books such
      as Somerville's "Software Engineering" and Pressman's
      "Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach" are
      updated? If so then I do not see why Agile methods
      should not be part of it.



      --- Mike Cohn <mike@...> wrote:

      There's a difference, however, between mentioning
      agile methods and writing
      a body of knowledge that has some implicit assumptions
      about Big Design
      Upfront. I would think our body of knowledge should
      include mention that Big
      Design Upfront doesn't work--even if there is no
      explicit mention of
      anything agile.

      Perhaps we mean a guide to the Agile Body of
      Knowledge? :)


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
    • Mike Beedle
      ... From: Fabian Ritzmann [mailto:usefri@gmx.net] ... Oh, I don t know -- we are still sort of on topic. ... We call tests by the user acceptance tests or
      Message 37 of 37 , Jun 6, 2003
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Fabian Ritzmann [mailto:usefri@...]
        > Need to bring this back on topic for this list. :-)

        Oh, I don't know -- we are still sort of on topic.

        > --- Fabian Ritzmann <usefri@...> wrote:
        > XP as I understand it uses unit tests and system
        > tests, unit tests for unit testing and system tests for
        > whatever the users want to test, including quality
        > aspects like performance, reliability, etc.

        We call tests by the user "acceptance tests" or ATs.

        I think this is a valid definition across XP and
        Scrum but I don't know if other agile methods call
        them the same way.

        self wrote:
        > The combination is very powerful:
        > * test as _specification_ from Test-First, and
        > * program as executable _specification_ from
        > functional programming
        > Both strategies drive development more into the
        > quantifiable _what_ space, much more than worthless
        > "exhaustive requirements documents" or "models".
        > Perhaps, this is what we need to concentrate in
        > software architecture -- in patterns that tell us
        > _what_ to program and that are executable,

        Fabian wrote:
        >The principle problem is that provable (and executable)
        >specifications don't help if the specification is wrong.
        >And we all know that specifications always change,
        >that's why we do Scrum or another Agile development
        >method. Of course that shouldn't keep anybody from
        >improving the way we are programming these days.

        True. In our view, the need for acceptance tests
        conducted through people-2-people interaction
        never goes away for the exact reasons you list
        (and regardless the programming styles used):

        - making sure that the specification is not wrong
        - making sure that we keep up with changes
        for the specification
        - making sure that the user experience is
        comfortable i.e. timely, convenient, beautiful, etc.

        It is just easier, faster and even more economical
        in some paradigms of programming to do the above
        3 things,

        - Mike
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.