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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Programming the project (was: Raising the Bar on Agile WANNABEs)

Expand Messages
  • Mike Dwyer
    Sophos ad Machina might be appropriate (a poorly patterned pun of deus ex machina) Michael F. Dwyer Mike.Dwyer1@comcast.net 978 683 3439 ... From: Boris
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 28, 2004
      Sophos ad Machina might be appropriate (a poorly patterned pun of deus ex
      machina)

      Michael F. Dwyer

      Mike.Dwyer1@...
      978 683 3439


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Boris Gloger [mailto:boris.gloger@...]
      Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 4:04 AM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Programming the project (was: Raising the
      Bar on Agile WANNABEs)


      Hi Daniel,

      since a couple of days I try to find a good answer to your question,
      but I do not find one.


      On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:43:45 -0600, Daniel Gackle <gackle@...> wrote:


      [...]

      >
      > There's a common fallacy in the software business. The fallacy says that
      > because software runs on a machine, a project that produces software
      > must also be a machine. Hence the effort to program the people on the
      project,
      > to force them to carry out some formula or code that (it is supposed)
      > will generate the desired output, working software.

      I like this observation, you say that we are looking for a process so
      that we can treat the team as an engine that creates code, right?

      >
      > (Toolcentric thinking fits into this fantasy because tools are good for
      > monitoring and controlling machines.)

      and tools will help us to treat the team in this way, correct?

      >
      > Of course, the people who design software for computers are not
      > themselves computers. And while it is fun to make code
      > constructs, to /be/ a code construct is soul-destroying.
      >

      very cool observation, does this mean that the code is human? I mean,
      is language human? In my understanding, code is nothing more than
      text. A text that is readable by a non human thing. But in fact you
      could talk in code, right? So maybe our product is not a "product" but
      a being ein SEIN.

      > Could so elementary a logical error really give rise to billions of
      dollars'
      > worth of soul-destroying waste? I think it could. Of course, there
      > are emotional factors driving the logical error.
      >

      What emotional factors drive this logical error? What do you think?

      > Philosophy has well-defined names for common fallacies ("ad hominem" and
      > the like). Does anybody know which category this one falls in?
      >

      Not by heard - but I will try to look it up.

      boris



      To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
      Yahoo! Groups Links
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.