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

Re: Comments on "The Decline and Fall of Agile" and "Dirty Rotten ScrumDrels"

Expand Messages
  • woynam
    ... Of course refactoring was understood. It may not have been called refactoring at the time, but the basic mechanics were in place. The goal was to make
    Message 1 of 68 , Nov 28, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, srinivas chillara
      <ceezone@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Hello, Joseph. On Friday, November 21, 2008, at 11:13:15 AM, you
      > wrote:
      >
      > > 1. The original Scrum team had "all" the XP practices. There was a
      > > conscious decision not to include those engineering practices in
      > > defined Scrum. (Is the jury still out on that one?)
      >
      > Is it really true that they had ALL of them? I don't think TDD had
      > been invented yet, for example.
      >
      > --------------------------------------------------------------
      >

      Of course "refactoring" was understood. It may not have been called
      refactoring at the time, but the basic mechanics were in place. The
      goal was to make the design cleaner without breaking anything. One way
      to do this was to run tests. Martin Fowler stressed the importance of
      running tests after every minor change.

      As Smalltalk developers, we yanked methods and classes around all the
      time. The development environment made this easy. The introduction of
      the refactoring browser made it easier.

      For the most part, the IDE source code was a great repository of
      common idioms and patterns on which to base your code. Kent Beck's
      "Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns" book in 1996 helped formalize the
      core Smalltalk idioms, as well as a set of idioms that were generally
      language independent.


      >
      > I also don't think refactoring was...
      > a. understood
      > b. differentiated clearly from enhancement
      > c. intertwined with TDD
      >
      > ... before 2000, by more than a handful of people in UIUC and the
      Kent Becks of this world. What I particularly like about the XP
      blokes, is that I've never heard them making all sorts of claim for
      XP's applicability to everything for all situations.
      > Indeed if the Scrum pioneers simply, conciously left out "all" the
      XP practice definitions, I am not sure that it is a case of good
      judgement. At the very least they could/would have let the world know
      about what they achieved as an addendum/appendix to Scrum.
      >

      Perhaps. In hindsight, including an appendix might have been a good
      thing. However, Mike and Ken were simply trying to get a simple book
      published. They weren't trying to write the entire history of software
      development practices.

      On the flip side, the first XP book did not include a lot of detail on
      the management side of the process. Many have argued that XP contains
      all the management practices of Scrum, but this wasn't entirely clear
      in the first book, either. Again, I don't fault Kent.

      Mark


      > --- Srinivas
      >
      > PS: Was Martin Fowler on the first original Scrum team? Then I
      suppose there was a possibility.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to
      http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
      >
    • woynam
      ... Of course refactoring was understood. It may not have been called refactoring at the time, but the basic mechanics were in place. The goal was to make
      Message 68 of 68 , Nov 28, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, srinivas chillara
        <ceezone@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Hello, Joseph. On Friday, November 21, 2008, at 11:13:15 AM, you
        > wrote:
        >
        > > 1. The original Scrum team had "all" the XP practices. There was a
        > > conscious decision not to include those engineering practices in
        > > defined Scrum. (Is the jury still out on that one?)
        >
        > Is it really true that they had ALL of them? I don't think TDD had
        > been invented yet, for example.
        >
        > --------------------------------------------------------------
        >

        Of course "refactoring" was understood. It may not have been called
        refactoring at the time, but the basic mechanics were in place. The
        goal was to make the design cleaner without breaking anything. One way
        to do this was to run tests. Martin Fowler stressed the importance of
        running tests after every minor change.

        As Smalltalk developers, we yanked methods and classes around all the
        time. The development environment made this easy. The introduction of
        the refactoring browser made it easier.

        For the most part, the IDE source code was a great repository of
        common idioms and patterns on which to base your code. Kent Beck's
        "Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns" book in 1996 helped formalize the
        core Smalltalk idioms, as well as a set of idioms that were generally
        language independent.


        >
        > I also don't think refactoring was...
        > a. understood
        > b. differentiated clearly from enhancement
        > c. intertwined with TDD
        >
        > ... before 2000, by more than a handful of people in UIUC and the
        Kent Becks of this world. What I particularly like about the XP
        blokes, is that I've never heard them making all sorts of claim for
        XP's applicability to everything for all situations.
        > Indeed if the Scrum pioneers simply, conciously left out "all" the
        XP practice definitions, I am not sure that it is a case of good
        judgement. At the very least they could/would have let the world know
        about what they achieved as an addendum/appendix to Scrum.
        >

        Perhaps. In hindsight, including an appendix might have been a good
        thing. However, Mike and Ken were simply trying to get a simple book
        published. They weren't trying to write the entire history of software
        development practices.

        On the flip side, the first XP book did not include a lot of detail on
        the management side of the process. Many have argued that XP contains
        all the management practices of Scrum, but this wasn't entirely clear
        in the first book, either. Again, I don't fault Kent.

        Mark


        > --- Srinivas
        >
        > PS: Was Martin Fowler on the first original Scrum team? Then I
        suppose there was a possibility.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to
        http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.