Re: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.
- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
I just happened to have seen the above quote in someone's sig
recently... I guess he wasn't using Haskell.
--- In email@example.com, "Mike Cohn" <mike@m...>
> Hmm, when you write HaskellUnit for us, I'll give it a try! :)brain doesn't
> I had brief exposure to Miranda and ML in the early 90s and my
> think that way. I had a really hard time of it.http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Beedle [mailto:beedlem@e...]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:11 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for
> Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.
> 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
> To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
- -----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:We call tests by the user "acceptance tests" or ATs.
> 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.
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.
> The combination is very powerful:Fabian wrote:
> * 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,
>The principle problem is that provable (and executable)True. In our view, the need for acceptance tests
>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.
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