Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.
Interesting post. I guess it is somewhat
that he supports and sells an agile method i.e.
his own version of XP; but on the other hand he
has not been supportive or convincing enough to
highlight XP or agile in SWEBOK.
Perhaps, he does feel it is a conflict of interest
to promote in SWEBOK the agile things he sells,
--- bakersox1 <StockingB@...> wrote:
His prominence there coupled with the cited absence
of support in the SWEBOK material might suggest that
he is, at best, a luke-warm friend of the movement.
A brief review of his site (www.construx.com) suggests
that, while he seems to honor XP practices and the
word "Agile" (the latter only from a distance), he
makes little effort to further either movement
except for an attempt to market his own flavor of XP
via a proprietary framework called CxOne.
See his white paper
comparing his proprietary "CxOne" process to
XP "along with a look at how CxOne can assist XP
projects". His company will be happy to sell you
their "CxOne Extreme Programming toolkit" which "gives
you all the materials you need to run a successful XP
His company's decription of the CxOne software
(http://www.construx.com/cxone/) seems almost to go
out of its way to avoid use of the word "agile",
substituting it with a whole string of adjectives
that retain its essence: "lightweight, tailorable,
modular, and scalable".
The only reference I could find there to the agile
_movement_ is in a
copy of his editorial entitled "Common Sense" from the
2001 issue of IEEE/Software in which he says:
"One contribution of the agile programming movement is
to cast a
critical eye toward prevention and ensure that
projects do not spend
more on prevention than they would need to spend on
cure. On balance,
I think this common sense maxim does apply to
software, but we need
to be careful not to overextend it, i.e., "Moderation
in all things."
Could we perhaps conclude that Mr McConnell might fear
1.) a conflict of interest if he were to promote XP
2.) trying to promote "common sense" as an engineering
discipline if he were to promote agile methodolgies
- -----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