jqjester

4 ms·

1.
by jqjester 11y ago
Or perhaps an author fully understands their own work the same way a programmer knows how users will use their programs.
2.
by jqjester 12y ago
In many cases, isolated testing does not require test doubles. There are alternatives to mocks: as long as the system under test is not manipulating its dependencies, you can get the state you need from the external resources and pass that
3.
by jqjester 13y ago
They don't have to be unbounded to be destructive to this estimation method, just large and unknowable.
4.
by jqjester 13y ago
I'd rather have two simple things than one complex thing. In the codebases I've worked on, a lot of the complexity I see arose from people changing the meaning of existing code so they could 'reuse' it.
5.
by jqjester 14y ago
That sounds fair.
6.
by jqjester 14y ago
Again, McConnell isn't disagreeing with Bossavit's claims about the Curtis 1986 citation. He concurs! "I never stated that Curtis 1986 was an 'empirical study.' Curtis 1986 is a broad paper that touches on, among other things, differences i
7.
by jqjester 14y ago
I was originally responding to the challenge "aren't you taking Bossavit's claims on trust?" I'm differentiating between Bossavit's claims about the citations from Bossavit's analysis and arguments. I have to take his claims about the artic
8.
by jqjester 14y ago
Sure - I'm pointing to the section titled "A Deeper Dive into the Research Supporting '10x'". I'm accepting one of Bossavit's claims on trust: he says that of McConnell's eight citations in support of the 10x claim, only two were original r
9.
by jqjester 14y ago
Steve McConnell himself doesn't dispute Bossavit's claims about the earlier studies (for the most part), he just disagrees about the significance of those claims. See McConnell's rebuttal in which he acknowledges the methodological weakness