4 ms·

"Can you prove that whatever you are doing now works? Or is it just a case of you feel it works for you?" Good Question. Another question is "Do you go around

"Can you prove that whatever you are doing now works? Or is it just a case of you feel it works for you?" Good Question. Another question is "Do you go around calling legendary programmers who don't use your practices, yet ship product, "Stone Age Programmers"? Or the questioning of your favorite practice X as "X derangement syndrome"? If so why?

raganwald 17y ago
My comment said absolutely nothing in support of or in refutation of statements along those lines, so I am disinclined to pursue this line of discussion. But if it amuses you, consider the question of whether people like Alan Turning and John McCarthy operated in the stone age of computer programming. For that matter, consider the question of whether we are still in the stone age. I am inclined to say we are remarkably unenlightened. Some people ship without process, we don't really know why other than to make vague statement like "they're legends." Others have process but fail to ship and we again don't fully understand why. Although our tools are concrete, our application of them seems to be a mystery with very little hard research or true science behind it.
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  "My comment said absolutely nothing in support of or in refutation of statements along those lines," Oh I never said or implied you did. That is why I phrased my comment as "Another question . I unreservedly apologise if anything i wrote here I gave that impression. ", consider the question of whether people like Alan Turning and John McCarthy operated in the stone age of computer programming." but those are not the people being addressed as "stone Age programmers". The people interviewed in CaW (which is how this hole brouhaha started in the first place) and Joel Spolsky are hardly "Stone Age" programmers just because they don't "evolve design" using TDD. As per Bob Martin , people who don't use TDD are "Stone age". People who question the value of TDD are "deranged". This sounds like religious fanaticism to me. To extend your original comment. "Person A claims "Process P is good!" Person B retorts "Sez you, can't prove it to my satisfaction!"" Person A replies "That is because you are a deranged Stone Age Programmer".
  - raganwald 17y ago
    Well, Robert can say whatever he wants about people and you are welcome to disparage him for it, God bless you both. But the reason why your question is another question is because it has nothing to do with my question, not even when phrased as an extension to my original imaginary dialogue. My question is about people who reject some things for lack of empirical justification while accepting others without such justification. If you want to piggy-back off my question to criticize famous consultants, how about asking whether Robert Martin is actually Person B and not Person A? I haven't read his work in enough detail to comment one way or another, but I certainly am open to the possibility that some of the proponents of agile methodology do so on the basis of very scant evidence while rejecting other approaches for lack of substantial justification.
    - plinkplonk 17y ago
      " But the reason why your question is another question is because it has nothing to do with my question, not even when phrased as an extension to my original imaginary dialogue." I never said it did (I am saying this the second time). You have a right to your opinion. You were using a rhetorical device to put forward an opinion. So was I. I wasn't aware it was somehow offensive, especially since I made it clear I was borrowing the device and not attacking your points and apologised for any inadvertent impressions to the contrary. . If that still offends you ... [shrug] whatever. "I haven't read his work in enough detail" I have. "but I certainly am open to the possibility that some of the proponents of agile methodology do so on the basis of very scant evidence while rejecting other approaches for lack of substantial justification." Fair enough. With that, I exit this thread in the interests of harmony and not wasting time hairsplitting.
      - raganwald 17y ago
        I didn't take offense, nor did I actually argue against your point. I was aiming for vigorously trying to drag the thread it back to my point. I can understand your desire to call Mr. Martin to task for making bone-headed statements. I would join you, however I have made enough of my own mistakes that I have very little room for other people in the part of my brain devoted to bone-headed writing.

raganwald 17y ago

My comment said absolutely nothing in support of or in refutation of statements along those lines, so I am disinclined to pursue this line of discussion. But if it amuses you, consider the question of whether people like Alan Turning and John McCarthy operated in the stone age of computer programming. For that matter, consider the question of whether we are still in the stone age. I am inclined to say we are remarkably unenlightened. Some people ship without process, we don't really know why other than to make vague statement like "they're legends." Others have process but fail to ship and we again don't fully understand why. Although our tools are concrete, our application of them seems to be a mystery with very little hard research or true science behind it.

plinkplonk 17y ago
"My comment said absolutely nothing in support of or in refutation of statements along those lines," Oh I never said or implied you did. That is why I phrased my comment as "Another question . I unreservedly apologise if anything i wrote here I gave that impression. ", consider the question of whether people like Alan Turning and John McCarthy operated in the stone age of computer programming." but those are not the people being addressed as "stone Age programmers". The people interviewed in CaW (which is how this hole brouhaha started in the first place) and Joel Spolsky are hardly "Stone Age" programmers just because they don't "evolve design" using TDD. As per Bob Martin , people who don't use TDD are "Stone age". People who question the value of TDD are "deranged". This sounds like religious fanaticism to me. To extend your original comment. "Person A claims "Process P is good!" Person B retorts "Sez you, can't prove it to my satisfaction!"" Person A replies "That is because you are a deranged Stone Age Programmer".
- raganwald 17y ago
  Well, Robert can say whatever he wants about people and you are welcome to disparage him for it, God bless you both. But the reason why your question is another question is because it has nothing to do with my question, not even when phrased as an extension to my original imaginary dialogue. My question is about people who reject some things for lack of empirical justification while accepting others without such justification. If you want to piggy-back off my question to criticize famous consultants, how about asking whether Robert Martin is actually Person B and not Person A? I haven't read his work in enough detail to comment one way or another, but I certainly am open to the possibility that some of the proponents of agile methodology do so on the basis of very scant evidence while rejecting other approaches for lack of substantial justification.
  - plinkplonk 17y ago
    " But the reason why your question is another question is because it has nothing to do with my question, not even when phrased as an extension to my original imaginary dialogue." I never said it did (I am saying this the second time). You have a right to your opinion. You were using a rhetorical device to put forward an opinion. So was I. I wasn't aware it was somehow offensive, especially since I made it clear I was borrowing the device and not attacking your points and apologised for any inadvertent impressions to the contrary. . If that still offends you ... [shrug] whatever. "I haven't read his work in enough detail" I have. "but I certainly am open to the possibility that some of the proponents of agile methodology do so on the basis of very scant evidence while rejecting other approaches for lack of substantial justification." Fair enough. With that, I exit this thread in the interests of harmony and not wasting time hairsplitting.
    - raganwald 17y ago
      I didn't take offense, nor did I actually argue against your point. I was aiming for vigorously trying to drag the thread it back to my point. I can understand your desire to call Mr. Martin to task for making bone-headed statements. I would join you, however I have made enough of my own mistakes that I have very little room for other people in the part of my brain devoted to bone-headed writing.