Re: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mike Cohn" <mike@m...> wrote:
> Deb--SWEBOK is great. We don't have long though as they want reviewer
> I think your idea for an Agile Alliance program to contribute to
feedback by 6/30. There's a form on the Alliance page if you want to
start it as a program. If you do, count me in as a contributor...
I feel quite out of my depth on this one, so must decline. I'm also
involved in starting the Scrum Alliance in Toronto, so my hands are full.
But I hope someone reading this thread is motivated to do so... it
could be important for getting Agile into the mainstream. I had supper
with a colleague last night who just finished a Masters in Comp Sci,
specialising in Process, and has never heard of Agile. Sigh.
Anyone feeling like an 'evangelist' today?
- -----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