3 ms·

> i think the real intent of xp is continuous design, But that is the problem, when everything is malleable, you have no fixed "Underlying Structure" which is

> i think the real intent of xp is continuous design, But that is the problem, when everything is malleable, you have no fixed "Underlying Structure" which is what Design is all about. Iteration should always happen within a framework of understanding and not a free-for-all. This is why you have prototyping, plan one to throw away etc. > most of the core practices of xp are focused on extensibility and maintainability. I don't think this is specific to XP/Agile. > i'm undecided on whether it's more difficult to do well than the big-design-up-front practice, and i think the answer is probably 'it depends' True, this depends on what stage the product/project is at in its lifecycle. > boehm suggests iterating through the different stages every 2–3 months. It is a suggestion which can be lengthened/shortened according to project needs. > xp suggests iterating through the different stages every 2–3 minutes. Totally unworkable not to mention silly! I still have "Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change by Kent Beck" lying around somewhere so have to look it up on whether it is mins/days/weeks and at what stage of a project. > when i look at the software barry boehm has written and the software kent beck has written i think it's clear that kent beck is far more accomplished. i don't know how good or bad boehm's designs were ... <rest of the para> Violently Disagree! Barry Boehm's credentials - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Boehm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Boehm Writing mere software is no measure of how much you have thought/researched about important meta-issues surrounding the same i.e. "Software Development as Engineering Discipline". Kent Beck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Beck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Beck) offers nothing much here (consultant) while Barry Boehm (researcher/programmer/scientist/professor) is a giant in this field. The depth and importance of the latter's work far outstrips the former's. Also note the differences between Scientist/Engineer/Technician/Programmer/Coder roles. > reorganizing your own company to mimic trw in the 01980s is likely to sink you unless you, too, make your living from cost-plus contracts Not what i am talking about nor implying. > not to say that there's nothing to be learned from boehm's work, but you'll have to pick carefully There is much to be learned from Boehm's work if only to not reinvent the wheel. > by the way, possibly you are not a native speaker of english, but 'upfront design', 'requirements', and 'design' are not proper nouns, so should not be capitalized as perhaps they would be in german I use capitalization/scare quotes often to signal importance/nuance to the reader.

kragen 3y ago
> I use capitalization/scare quotes often to signal importance/nuance to the reader. well, it certainly does do that, but probably not in the way you were intending UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS 'course, i'm one to talk... anyway, i think that if you want advice on programming, you should get it from people who are good at it. people who think software is 'mere software' are never going to achieve anything in the field and can be safely disregarded, however many awards and other credentials they receive. wirth's achievements as a Scientist/Engineer/Technician/Programmer/Coder were because he took software seriously, the opposite extreme from the 'mere software' viewpoint
- rramadass 3y ago
  > well, it certainly does do that, but probably not in the way you were intending Well, you have to leave something to the Intelligence of the Reader :-) > anyway, i think that if you want advice on programming, you should get it from people who are good at it. people who think software is 'mere software' are never going to achieve anything in the field and can be safely disregarded, however many awards they receive. Again, Violently Disagree! People who think Djikstra/Hoare/Boehm/other greats had not written much "code" to warrant being taken seriously and were "mere theorists" do not understand the first thing about Science/Research/Meta-whatever and Engineering/Implementation; the former is the bedrock on which the latter stands. > wirth's achievements as a Scientist/Engineer/Technician/Programmer/Coder were because he took software seriously, the opposite extreme from the 'mere software' viewpoint Not opposite, he was both a Scientist and an Engineer which is the source of his greatness. Languages/Compilers/OS/HDL/Processor design/Applications the man did it all.
  - kragen 3y ago
    dijkstra wrote an extremely influential operating system, hoare wrote several influential compilers and worked with wirth on algol w, and they both made extensive progress on formal methods. neither of them would ever utter the phrase 'mere software'; the excellent body of theory they developed is about software and investigates software in detail. boehm's does not. instead he theorized about how to manage programmers, which is not at all the same thing, because your theories are not falsifiable. he does not rise to the level of being a theorist all of dijkstra, wirth, and hoare were instances of your 'Scientist/Engineer/Technician/Programmer/Coder' polymath. hoare still is

kragen 3y ago

> I use capitalization/scare quotes often to signal importance/nuance to the reader. well, it certainly does do that, but probably not in the way you were intending UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS 'course, i'm one to talk... anyway, i think that if you want advice on programming, you should get it from people who are good at it. people who think software is 'mere software' are never going to achieve anything in the field and can be safely disregarded, however many awards and other credentials they receive. wirth's achievements as a Scientist/Engineer/Technician/Programmer/Coder were because he took software seriously, the opposite extreme from the 'mere software' viewpoint

rramadass 3y ago
> well, it certainly does do that, but probably not in the way you were intending Well, you have to leave something to the Intelligence of the Reader :-) > anyway, i think that if you want advice on programming, you should get it from people who are good at it. people who think software is 'mere software' are never going to achieve anything in the field and can be safely disregarded, however many awards they receive. Again, Violently Disagree! People who think Djikstra/Hoare/Boehm/other greats had not written much "code" to warrant being taken seriously and were "mere theorists" do not understand the first thing about Science/Research/Meta-whatever and Engineering/Implementation; the former is the bedrock on which the latter stands. > wirth's achievements as a Scientist/Engineer/Technician/Programmer/Coder were because he took software seriously, the opposite extreme from the 'mere software' viewpoint Not opposite, he was both a Scientist and an Engineer which is the source of his greatness. Languages/Compilers/OS/HDL/Processor design/Applications the man did it all.
- kragen 3y ago
  dijkstra wrote an extremely influential operating system, hoare wrote several influential compilers and worked with wirth on algol w, and they both made extensive progress on formal methods. neither of them would ever utter the phrase 'mere software'; the excellent body of theory they developed is about software and investigates software in detail. boehm's does not. instead he theorized about how to manage programmers, which is not at all the same thing, because your theories are not falsifiable. he does not rise to the level of being a theorist all of dijkstra, wirth, and hoare were instances of your 'Scientist/Engineer/Technician/Programmer/Coder' polymath. hoare still is