5 ms·

"Extreme Programming (XP)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_programming) was the precursor to and origin

"Extreme Programming (XP)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_programming) was the precursor to and origin of current Agile/Scrum and similar methodologies whose main tenet is that "Upfront Design is unnecessary" and "Design & Program as you go". Niklaus Wirth (along with Edsger Djikstra and other greats) had established the field of "Structured Design & Programming", "Top-Down Design", "Program Development by Stepwise Refinement" and similar techniques which laid the foundations of modern software development all of which had an emphasis on "Upfront Design"; You always Think before you Code. I am totally with Wirth (and the other greats); XP/Agile/Scrum are all lazy excuses used by people "who don't know how to design software".

kragen 3y ago
this is not a correct description of xp or of the history of software development certainly wirth and dijkstra laid the foundations of modern software development; so, too, did mccarthy, perlis, sussman, steele, kay, minsky, mcilroy, ritchie, thompson, and perhaps most of all stallman here's minsky: https://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Why%20programming%20is--.html https://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Why%20programming%2... article title: "WHY PROGRAMMING IS A GOOD MEDIUM FOR EXPRESSING POORLY UNDERSTOOD AND SLOPPILY-FORMULATED IDEAS"
- rramadass 3y ago
  Irrelevant; We are not trying to explain the history of software development here. The comment was in response to what Wirth could have meant when he said “I suppose that’s all very well if you don’t know how to design software.” It is in this context that my earlier comment needs to be UNDERSTOOD.
  - kragen 3y ago
    it doesn't really need to be; don't bother
    - rramadass 3y ago
      From your previous comment, it needed to be pointed out.
      - kragen 3y ago
        in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38899328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38899328 you deprecated achievements like oberon as 'mere software' so any effort spent on understanding your comments is wasted effort
        rramadass 3y ago
        > you deprecated achievements like oberon as 'mere software' This is a straight-up intentional misrepresentation of what was said. It was in response to your claim of Kent Beck's achievements and nothing whatever to do with Wirth's. If that is what you understood then you need remedial English comprehension classes.
        kragen 3y ago
        you deprecated beck's work as 'mere software'. this presupposes that software is 'mere', which is to say, less significant than the other topics at hand. this logically entails deprecation of oberon, which is also software similarly, you said that when i repeated dijkstra's judgment that boehm's work, indeed boehm's entire field (and beck's!) was 'snake oil', i was betraying only my own ignorance. but that would logically entail that dijkstra, whose judgment i was relaying, was led to this judgment by his ignorance. of course this is possible but your disagreement with him is hardly strong evidence of it. this makes your pleas for intellectual humility on my part laughable in short, the problem is not that i lack comprehension if english, but that i possess comprehension of logic
        rramadass 3y ago
        You have failed your course in logic. > you deprecated beck's work as 'mere software'. this presupposes that software is 'mere', which is to say, less significant than the other topics at hand. this logically entails deprecation of oberon, which is also software Stating Beck's work as "mere software" (i.e. nothing noteworthy) DOES NOT mean all software (from others) is "mere software". A course in Set Theory/Propositional/Predicate logic is in order here. The set of software that Wirth produced vs. the set of software that Beck produced are completely different and a considered judgement of the latter cannot be generalized to the former. You get zero marks for doing this. > similarly, you said that when i repeated dijkstra's judgment that boehm's work, indeed boehm's entire field (and beck's!) was 'snake oil', i was betraying only my own ignorance. but that would logically entail that dijkstra, whose judgment i was relaying, was led to this judgment by his ignorance. This is a false statement and again betrays your ignorance. Dijkstra's comments as regards "Software Engineering" were general observations on the state of the field at that time and NOT a critique of Boehm's work. They are two different things. Here is a longish IEEE pdf A Conversation with Barry Boehm: Recollections from 50 years of Software Engineering - https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel7/52/8474478/08474492.pdf https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel7/52/8474478/08474492.pdf for your edification. Here Boehm mentions his interactions with Dijkstra and others and how they were all working together to solve what was then called "Software Crisis". I have repeatedly pointed out (my other comments in this thread) your ignorance of Boehm's work and their significance but instead of acknowledging and rectifying it by some study, you are only making it worse by your comments where you are merely "Arguing for the sake of argument" wasting everybody's time and risking being seen as a caricature.

kragen 3y ago

this is not a correct description of xp or of the history of software development certainly wirth and dijkstra laid the foundations of modern software development; so, too, did mccarthy, perlis, sussman, steele, kay, minsky, mcilroy, ritchie, thompson, and perhaps most of all stallman here's minsky: https://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Why%20programming%20is--.html https://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Why%20programming%2... article title: "WHY PROGRAMMING IS A GOOD MEDIUM FOR EXPRESSING POORLY UNDERSTOOD AND SLOPPILY-FORMULATED IDEAS"

rramadass 3y ago
Irrelevant; We are not trying to explain the history of software development here. The comment was in response to what Wirth could have meant when he said “I suppose that’s all very well if you don’t know how to design software.” It is in this context that my earlier comment needs to be UNDERSTOOD.
- kragen 3y ago
  it doesn't really need to be; don't bother
  - rramadass 3y ago
    From your previous comment, it needed to be pointed out.
    - kragen 3y ago
      in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38899328 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38899328 you deprecated achievements like oberon as 'mere software' so any effort spent on understanding your comments is wasted effort
      - rramadass 3y ago
        > you deprecated achievements like oberon as 'mere software' This is a straight-up intentional misrepresentation of what was said. It was in response to your claim of Kent Beck's achievements and nothing whatever to do with Wirth's. If that is what you understood then you need remedial English comprehension classes.
        kragen 3y ago
        you deprecated beck's work as 'mere software'. this presupposes that software is 'mere', which is to say, less significant than the other topics at hand. this logically entails deprecation of oberon, which is also software similarly, you said that when i repeated dijkstra's judgment that boehm's work, indeed boehm's entire field (and beck's!) was 'snake oil', i was betraying only my own ignorance. but that would logically entail that dijkstra, whose judgment i was relaying, was led to this judgment by his ignorance. of course this is possible but your disagreement with him is hardly strong evidence of it. this makes your pleas for intellectual humility on my part laughable in short, the problem is not that i lack comprehension if english, but that i possess comprehension of logic
        rramadass 3y ago
        You have failed your course in logic. > you deprecated beck's work as 'mere software'. this presupposes that software is 'mere', which is to say, less significant than the other topics at hand. this logically entails deprecation of oberon, which is also software Stating Beck's work as "mere software" (i.e. nothing noteworthy) DOES NOT mean all software (from others) is "mere software". A course in Set Theory/Propositional/Predicate logic is in order here. The set of software that Wirth produced vs. the set of software that Beck produced are completely different and a considered judgement of the latter cannot be generalized to the former. You get zero marks for doing this. > similarly, you said that when i repeated dijkstra's judgment that boehm's work, indeed boehm's entire field (and beck's!) was 'snake oil', i was betraying only my own ignorance. but that would logically entail that dijkstra, whose judgment i was relaying, was led to this judgment by his ignorance. This is a false statement and again betrays your ignorance. Dijkstra's comments as regards "Software Engineering" were general observations on the state of the field at that time and NOT a critique of Boehm's work. They are two different things. Here is a longish IEEE pdf A Conversation with Barry Boehm: Recollections from 50 years of Software Engineering - https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel7/52/8474478/08474492.pdf https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel7/52/8474478/08474492.pdf for your edification. Here Boehm mentions his interactions with Dijkstra and others and how they were all working together to solve what was then called "Software Crisis". I have repeatedly pointed out (my other comments in this thread) your ignorance of Boehm's work and their significance but instead of acknowledging and rectifying it by some study, you are only making it worse by your comments where you are merely "Arguing for the sake of argument" wasting everybody's time and risking being seen as a caricature.