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

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

Expand Messages
  • Mike Beedle
    ... Test-first makes more sense specially for imperative modes of programming i.e. Java, C, Smalltalk, C++, Objective C, COBOL, etc.; where we use unit tests
    Message 1 of 37 , Jun 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Micheal wrote:
      > When the first programming course in a CS
      > curriculum uses Test Driven Development,
      > we'll be teaching programming as we should.

      David M. wrote:
      >Bottom line... I agree, there was an economic
      >component to early
      >"test-first" because of mainframe costs.

      Mike C. wrote:
      > Yes, we did "test first" because our training
      > environment was simulating a high-cost environment.

      Mike C. wrote:
      > I went for a 3-week COBOL training class outside
      > Chicago and we were very definitely taught to write
      > tests first.

      David A. wrote:
      > On a more serious note - the "test first" concept
      > was driven out of economics - the high cost of
      > computer time.

      Test-first makes more sense specially for
      imperative modes of programming i.e. Java, C,
      Smalltalk, C++, Objective C, COBOL, etc.; where
      we use unit tests to ensure quality of system
      issues: memory, assignment, branching, looping,
      conditions, coverage, side effects, and
      handling of system exceptions.

      What the world needs to accept is that
      declarative programming paradigms lead to a much
      quality to begin with because they avoid
      system errors and in many cases guarantee provability:
      Haskell, Clips, Prolog, Erlang, etc., etc.

      "Formal proof isn't testing, testing isn't formal
      proof..." ... Proof by test is hard -- you need to
      test all conditions, through all branches!

      Proof will eventually win.

      Optimally, we can use multi-paradigmic programming
      languages or paradigms that would compliment
      each other at different levels of scale:
      e.g. Haskell (through monads), Curry, Mozart,
      LISA, etc.

      Acceptance tests on the other hand will always be
      needed -- we still much prefer to have them done
      by the user interacting with the programmer, through
      repeated interactions, rather than by automation.
      i.e. we _still_ prefer people interactions over
      processes and tools, sounds familiar?

      - Mike
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        -----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.