 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / May 2006What is Java extreme programming?
Dear All, In two Java job interviews, interviewers asked me if I know extreme programming. I don't. What is Java extreme programming? Is it marketable skill? Thank you. > Dear All, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thank you. It's using the extreme programming methodology to Java development. Aside from pair programming, it uses the same core set of development techniques as most of the other agile methodologies: unit testing - jUnit in the case of Java automated builds - Ant prototyping light in terms of design artefacts (i.e. none of the heavyweight RUP modelling) If you need pointers to books then take a look at the Software Methodologies page at TechBookReport (http://www.techbookreport.com/SoftwareIndex.html). HTH  SignatureTechBookReport Java http://www.techbookreport.com/JavaIndex.html >> Dear All, >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > HTH Minor correction. xp doesn't use prototyping, it uses evolutionary design so that every iteration ends with an application that has fully working and tested features (known as Running Tested Features - RTF). Now in the early iterations of large projects, this will mean the application is not deployable, but those features that are there do work. In an XP project, we aim to reach a Minimum Marketable Feature set as early as possible. When we have enough RTFs for the users to be able to start making use of the application. For more details see: http://www.xp123.com/xplor/xp0202/xp-one-page.PDF http://www.extremeprogramming.org/map/project.html http://www.xprogramming.com/index.htm Andrew >Minor correction. xp doesn't use prototyping, it uses evolutionary >design so that every iteration ends with an application that has fully >working and tested features (known as Running Tested Features - RTF). I think the idea is this: 1. customers really don't know what they want, but they are very good at detecting what they DON'T want. So it is best to give them something to knock up against as early as possible. 2. The more experience users have with an app, the smarter they are at designing what they really want. Similarly there is a principle in attacking difficult problems where you have no idea how to solve the whole thing. You simply solve some piece of it, or create a tool you think might be useful for the solution. When you are done you are smarter and less mentally cluttered with detail. You have a new black-box tool to think about the problem with. You are smarter, and better able to tackle the remaining problem. You have carved a piece of it off and put it in a black box where you don't have to think about it. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. >> Minor correction. xp doesn't use prototyping, it uses evolutionary >> design so that every iteration ends with an application that has fully [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > remaining problem. You have carved a piece of it off and put it in a > black box where you don't have to think about it. Yes this description is very near to what we do. I'd qualify it some with talk about: 1) Adapting to Change instead of having a Change Control process. As XP employs evolutionary design techniques the cost of change is low. 2) Adapting the Plan rather than following the plan. Hopefully, we all know the only constant is change. So instead of trying to limit it and plan long periods of time of work, we provide a broad over all Release Plan where we state very clearly to all concerned that its a best guess. We only plan in detail the iteration we are about to start. As iterations are usually 1, 2 or 4 weeks long, its more likely that our estimates will be accurate as we know the current design and state of the code base, plus the details of the feature is fresh in ours and the customer's mind. >>> Minor correction. xp doesn't use prototyping, it uses evolutionary >>> design so that every iteration ends with an application that has [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > and state of the code base, plus the details of the feature is fresh in > ours and the customer's mind. I suppose I should have also mentioned the very high degree of customer involvement in XP/Agile, far more than in a more traditional development process. SignatureTechBookReport Java http://www.techbookreport.com/JavaIndex.html > >Minor correction. xp doesn't use prototyping, it uses evolutionary > >design so that every iteration ends with an application that has fully [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > remaining problem. You have carved a piece of it off and put it in a > black box where you don't have to think about it. My biggest problem with extreme programming is getting the company to involve the customer/client in the development process. Sometimes, in the first place, the customer is separated from development by tiers of customer service donut heads, tech support donut heads, server closet junkies, and finally "development". Sometimes, even in a small company, there are protocols to follow when dealing with the customer and obliging them to commit a resource (sometimes an unknowledgable one who is no better and probably has to call in to the mother ship to get any information anyway) this can seem very unprofessional. Real Business Analysts are much better at going to the customer and analyzing their needs and they should have some degree of software development knowledge. Sometimes, having the developer go and be a business analyst has worked a bit....especially if they can stay for longer than a 2-3 day trip. Having them responsible for the "user stories" and having artifacts delivered on a daily basis is crucial IMHO. So anyhow, it can often be very tricky trying to interface with customers. Sometimes there is no customer and just a bunch of market research and an in house visionary feeding the business concept/requirements etc etc. Sometimes, it is "too visionary" and it has to be negotiated to make business sense as well as make sense to the original core vision as something useful in the business sense. John Gagon > My biggest problem with extreme programming is getting the company to > involve the customer/client in the development process. Sometimes, in > the first place, the customer is separated from development by tiers of > customer service donut heads, tech support donut heads, server closet > junkies, and finally "development". Sure. That element of XP is clearly written with in-house software development in mind. It makes sense to involve someone from the department within your company that will be using the software, but it makes less sense to ask a customer for the same committment. It certainly can seem odd. That's not an unconsidered problem, though. There are a few ways to deal with it. 1. Hire someone with significant experience in the field, and assign them the job title of customer liaison. When they are not working with the development team, they can be assigned to provide consulting and support services to people who ARE your customers, thus building their knowledge of the customer sphere. In essence, you create a "customer" who isn't subject to the problems of real customers. 2. Recruit real customers into the process by giving them free licenses to your software. This works best if you're doing the kind of software where you expect to have a lot of customers and not charge large amounts for each one. Make it clear that you want them to work with your development team to improve the software. #1 appeals to me. However, I unfortunately can't share any experience, as the environment I work in is too small to justify that kind of expenditure. Heck, at the moment we're even too small -- by a margin of one programmer -- to do pair programming. :) Signaturewww.designacourse.com The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere. Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer MindIQ Corporation >. Sometimes, even in a small company, >there are protocols to follow when dealing with the customer and >obliging them to commit a resource (sometimes an unknowledgable one who >is no better and probably has to call in to the mother ship to get any >information anyway) this can seem very unprofessional. I worked on a team developing a on-line banking system for a credit union. We would interview the manager who it turned out had a totally different model in his head of how things worked from how they really did. One big problem was getting them to tell us about exceptions to the rule. They never seemed to get it that even if something happened only once a month we had to know about it. They could not just "handle it manually" by the seat of their pants when the problem arose. We had to be sure there was some way to handle it, even if not a fully convenient way.. After weeks of this, I went to the manager and said, "This is not working. I would like to be trained as a teller." After a couple of days as a teller I finally discovered how things really worked and I incidentally came up with a list of things that should be automated. I asked "Why did you not mention these time-consuming tasks before?" "Because it never occurred to us you could sort things in more than one order." They were trying to automate things easy for humans but difficult for computers, while ignoring the things impossible for humans but a snap for computers. You need a programmer type familiar with the problem domain to even nail down the purpose of some computer system. In my early career, this feature of computing was its huge appeal. I could go into some new field, grill the experts about anything I pleased (nobody every questioned my need to know whatever I asked. Computer folk were a high priesthood.) and slake my curiosity, then encapsulate what I had learned in program that would use that knowledge long after I had forgotten it. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. > In two Java job interviews, interviewers asked me if I know extreme > programming. I don't. You apparently also don't know Google. SignatureThe comp.lang.java.gui FAQ: ftp://ftp.cs.uu.nl/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS/computer-lang/java/gui/faq http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/computer-lang.java.gui.faq/ > Dear All, > > In two Java job interviews, interviewers asked me if I know extreme > programming. I don't. > > What is Java extreme programming? Is it marketable skill? "Extreme Programming" is a project management style. It combines a strategy of test-driven development with short iterations. The term means different things to different people. Some people say "XP" and they have a very formal notion of what that means. Others say "XP" and they mostly mean, pair-programming, short dev cycles, and unit tests. To me, the most important part of the process is the test-driven approach. Ideally, you never write a line of code that does not already have a unit test that fails. In XP, everything you write, directly fits some requirement, and is written to make some test that already exists, pass. There are quite a few other elements that "XP" refers to. The customer is on-site, and participating in the continuous testing and integration. If you don't actually have your customer in your office, you have someone on your team that plays customer. Another element that's univerally present in XP projects is collective code ownership. Everything is coded to a single set of standards, and anyone on the project is expected to take ownership of anything, at any time. XP works best when all contributors are peers in terms of their skills, abilities, insights, and passion for their work. In some shops, that is a realistic approach, but it's certainly not true everywhere. > XP works best when all contributors are peers in terms of their skills, > abilities, insights, and passion for their work. In some shops, that is > a realistic approach, but it's certainly not true everywhere. It's certainly not generally achievable. If you're trying to do (e.g.) 3D visualisation on data extracted via data mining, you've got a lot better chance of finding a data-mining guru and an (e.g.) openGL guru than you have of finding 2 (count them, two) people with both skills ("peers") BugBear >> XP works best when all contributors are peers in terms of their >> skills, abilities, insights, and passion for their work. In some [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > BugBear I've seen any problems with different levels of expertise on an XP team. If anything, having differing levels helps! It stops the 'super-duper' developers from over engineering and it helps train newer developers. We normally end up with a design that is right for the application - KISS, rather than some framework laden monster. > We normally end up with a design that is right for the application - > KISS, rather than some framework laden monster. Offhand I don't see any /intrinsic/ mechansm to stop XP-ish processes producing under-engineered pond-scum. Not to suggest that you -- or anyone -- are producing pond-scum, but I doubt whether the /presence/ of good design can properly be attributed to a methodology which -- at least formally -- gives little weight to it. -- chris > Offhand I don't see any /intrinsic/ mechansm to stop XP-ish processes producing > under-engineered pond-scum. I thought the whole point of XP was to arrive quickly at "good enough is done" and leaving "good enough" in a state that can be maintained and development can continue. >> Offhand I don't see any /intrinsic/ mechansm to stop XP-ish processes >> producing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > done" and leaving "good enough" in a state that can be maintained and > development can continue. True - but Good Enough does not mean poorly designed - as is often the case when over eager developers start applying XP (or any other methodology ). Good Enough means it satisfies not only all of the Stories required of the current version of the system. It also means the design is easy to change. The Design MUST support easy change, because the whole underlying ethos of XP's design, is one of Evolutionary Design. Not Iterative Design as some think. If the design is not good enough, then we wont be able to quickly create the next Story - this is the true test of the design. For instance, I'm currently working on a Web app for our company. We are 95% finished and yet we still haven't put in User Roles (aka User Permissions). We may not even do it - as currently the Customers have been happy to forgo it. However, the set of Stories along the lines of : 'As a BlarPerson I Can't Edit the Thingy-me-bob, Because I'm not allowed' are still on the Release Plan. It just keeps getting pushed further into the future because at present more important Stories offer better business value to the Customers. Now, should they decide in the last week that 'actually you know guys, we really need those User Roles stories'. This wont be a problem for us. The way the design has evolved since the beginning of the project, means that whilst we never put ANY type of framework in place to support User Roles, the design can easily accommodate it. Andrew McDonagh <news@andmc.com> wrote on Thu, 11 May 2006 20:43:29 +0100 in comp.lang.java.programmer: >For instance, I'm currently working on a Web app for our company. We are >95% finished and yet we still haven't put in User Roles (aka User [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >that whilst we never put ANY type of framework in place to support User >Roles, the design can easily accommodate it. This sounds like a typical enterprise project in maintenance mode. > Andrew McDonagh <news@andmc.com> wrote on Thu, 11 May 2006 20:43:29 > +0100 in comp.lang.java.programmer: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > This sounds like a typical enterprise project in maintenance mode. and yet its a completely new (Green Field) project, started only 5 weeks ago. Andrew McDonagh <news@andmc.com> wrote on Fri, 12 May 2006 19:47:34 +0100 in comp.lang.java.programmer: >> Andrew McDonagh <news@andmc.com> wrote on Thu, 11 May 2006 20:43:29 >> +0100 in comp.lang.java.programmer: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >and yet its a completely new (Green Field) project, started only 5 weeks >ago. So it's a small (95% complete in 5 weeks) project that's winding down into maintenance mode. I don't see what's so special about what you're describing. Things like extensible architectures and prioritizing requirements are just good, common-sense practices, and are in no way unique to XP. SignatureCheck out QueryForm, a free, open source, Java/Swing-based front end for relational databases. http://qform.sourceforge.net If you're a musician, check out RPitch Relative Pitch Ear Training Software. http://rpitch.sourceforge.net > Andrew McDonagh <news@andmc.com> wrote on Fri, 12 May 2006 19:47:34 > +0100 in comp.lang.java.programmer: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > requirements are just good, common-sense practices, and are in no way > unique to XP. You seemed to have missed the point, we aren't winding down at all. We are developing today, exactly like we have every day of the project. Its true that things like extensible architectures can be good common sense practices. However, the fundamental difference with an XP project, is that we never spend any time designing, testing or implementing these architectures. You will not find on the Release plan, things like Create GUI Framework, Create MetaData Driven Dialog framework, Create DAO layer, Create Threading Model, etc. Instead, these architectures evolve out of the code themselves, as we continue to add more features to the code base. One of the fundamental practices of TestDrivenDevelopment is to 'remove duplication'. Couple this with XPs 'DoTheSimplistThingThatCouldPossiblyWork' and 'YouAintGonnaNeedIt', we end up with very simple designs that naturally evolve into extensible architectures. Andrew McDonagh <news@andmc.com> wrote on Sat, 13 May 2006 09:51:38 +0100 in comp.lang.java.programmer: >> Andrew McDonagh <news@andmc.com> wrote on Fri, 12 May 2006 19:47:34 >> +0100 in comp.lang.java.programmer: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >You seemed to have missed the point, we aren't winding down at all. We >are developing today, exactly like we have every day of the project. You seemed to have missed what I meant by "winding down into maintenance mode" it doesn't mean that development stops. I know two people who work full-time developing new features for a project that's been in maintenance mode since July '02. >Its true that things like extensible architectures can be good common >sense practices. However, the fundamental difference with an XP project, >is that we never spend any time designing, testing or implementing these >architectures. You will not find on the Release plan, things like >Create GUI Framework, Create MetaData Driven Dialog framework, Create >DAO layer, Create Threading Model, etc. So? I've never seen those things as individual line items on a project plan either. >Instead, these architectures evolve out of the code themselves, as we >continue to add more features to the code base. One of the fundamental >practices of TestDrivenDevelopment is to 'remove duplication'. Couple >this with XPs 'DoTheSimplistThingThatCouldPossiblyWork' and >'YouAintGonnaNeedIt', we end up with very simple designs that naturally >evolve into extensible architectures. You still don't get it, I'm afraid. "Simple designs that naturally evolve into extensible architectures" are not the exclusive province of XP. Your logic seems to be: 1. "I have been involved in several software development projects that used XP." 2. "Those projects were successful and resulted in an extensible and maintainable code base." 3. "Therefore, for a project to be successful and have an extensible and maintainable code base, you must use XP." SignatureCheck out QueryForm, a free, open source, Java/Swing-based front end for relational databases. http://qform.sourceforge.net If you're a musician, check out RPitch Relative Pitch Ear Training Software. http://rpitch.sourceforge.net >> We normally end up with a design that is right for the application - >> KISS, rather than some framework laden monster. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -- chris Strange, I take your last sentence to mean 'xp does give much weight to design' Am I right? If not...eh? If so, I'd have to clarify that XP not only requires a design, it mandates it. However, its not like other processes where Design is a specific period or point within the methodologies life cycle. In XP, we continuously design through out the entire life cycle. From the moment we capture a feature request (known as a Story) from the Customer, we are thinking about how we'd design that part of the system, given all of the usual suspect variables (e.g. what current architecture we have, what the code base is like, what other Stories are to be done that Iteration and most importantly of all - how would we test it). At the end of the Story gathering we'd have enough ideas for a design for that part to be able to accurately estimate how long that particular story would take to make. By Make, I mean write an hook in the executable Automated Acceptance Test (that the customer helped specify) & TestDrivenDevelop the Story. TestDrivenDevelopment is a Design process not a testing process - it just happens to use Unit Tests to document the design instead of things like UML, etc At the end of this, we have a fully Running Tested Feature - designed not just from the outset but continually during its creation. Maybe its this lack of 'do design now, then do this, then do that...' which is why people can mistakenly think XP holds little weight for design. So how does this stop pond-scum? It doesn't - no methodologies (XP, RUP, Etc) can . People stop pond-scum. People who are disciplined enough to follow design, development and process techniques which help aim them in a good direction. In the case of XP, this good direction is to have a Testable Design, rather than Designed For Test. [me:] > > Not to suggest that you -- or anyone -- are producing pond-scum, but I > > doubt whether the /presence/ of good design can properly be attributed > > to a methodology which -- at least formally -- gives little weight to > > it. > Strange, I take your last sentence to mean 'xp does give much weight to > design' Am I right? Is there a 'not' missing from that sentence ? Anyway, to clarify. What I mean is that XP seems to be built on the assumption that the programmers are capable of applying, and will in fact apply, good design principles at all times. It doesn't, to me, seem to contain anything which directly encourages, or requires, that (although it undoubtedly allows /room/ for good design in a way that some other methodologies don't). I'm not trying to suggest that XP is uniquely vulnerable to bad design (I have no opinion one way or the other). My point is that, at least from where I sit, it appears that you can't do XP without the talent or the attention to detail or the grasp of the big-picture which would enable you to produce good software using other methodologies. It seems to me that if a piece of software produced by XP is well-designed, then you can only attribute that quality to XP if you are comparing against another methodology that actively /impedes/ good design -- which would be stacking the deck IMO ;-) (And, again, I'm not suggesting that there may not be other qualities -- even more important ones -- which /are/ attributable to XP) > From the moment we capture a feature request (known as a Story) Just BTW. I find this abuse of the word "story" /really/ aggravating. "Story" is one of the most wonderful and powerful words in the English language. Stories have excitement, joy, or sadness, change and development. Stories have meaning and arc. The drab little descriptions used in XP don't deserve the word "story", not by a long way. -- chris > (...) > My point is that, at least from where I sit, >it appears that you can't do XP without the talent or the attention to detail >or the grasp of the big-picture which would enable you to produce good software >using other methodologies. > (...) Isn't part of the point that pair programming will cause the required talent/attention to detail to seep into the programming team and so turn even untalented team members into useful XPers? If so, then you probably only need to start with a small team of talented XP diehards and gradually add rookies for assimilation. Kind of like how you build large synthetic diamonds by starting with a tiny seed diamond and then just adding carbon under pressure to make it grow :-) Cheers Bent D SignatureBent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd powered by emacs > If so, then you probably only need to start with a small team of > talented XP diehards and gradually add rookies for assimilation. > > Kind of like how you build large synthetic diamonds by starting with a > tiny seed diamond and then just adding carbon under pressure to make > it grow :-) And then at some convenient time in the project, you grind up all the team members and seed a new team around each lump ;-) "Extreme" indeed... -- chris > [me:] >>> Not to suggest that you -- or anyone -- are producing pond-scum, but I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is there a 'not' missing from that sentence ? Doh! yes the 'not' is missing > Anyway, to clarify. What I mean is that XP seems to be built on the assumption > that the programmers are capable of applying, and will in fact apply, good [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > -- chris > [me:] >>> Not to suggest that you -- or anyone -- are producing pond-scum, but I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is there a 'not' missing from that sentence ? I think saying that XP gives little weight to good design is a gross mischaracterization. XP definitely highly values good design. The question is how do arrive at that good design. Do you arrive at it by doing a big upfront design before you write any code. That rarely arrives at a good design. XP says that the best design is going to be arrived at iteratively. Design is balancing tradeoffs. The best way to find out the tradeoffs is by doing a little work, see what can be improved and refactor it. There is no way to foresee all the tradeoffs ahead of time. What looks good on paper often is not good in practice. XP also does not put a value on some formal design documentation. These are universally out of date and of very little value. It doesn't say you can't use UML for instance, but only use it if there is real value to be gained. > Anyway, to clarify. What I mean is that XP seems to be built on the assumption > that the programmers are capable of applying, and will in fact apply, good [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are comparing against another methodology that actively /impedes/ good > design -- which would be stacking the deck IMO ;-) Your argument here seems to fall apart. Does XP require good programmers that can recognize good design? Of course it does. Any methodology does. XP does not require every one of the programmers to be top notch. With pair programming the expertise of the better programmers is more evenly distributed through out the project and it provides a way for the weaker programmers to be exposed to an learn good design. Refactoring provides ways to correct bad designs. Your statement that XP requires programmers "to be capable of applying good design principles at all times" is particularly puzzling. To me XP explicitly recognizes that no one is capable of applying good design principles at all times. In fact what is a good design principle is not even fixed. As requirements change what is a good design changes as well. What used to be good design is no longer good design with new requirements. It seems to me that big upfront design methodologies are the ones that require perfection in good design because you have to get it right up front as there is less chance to change it later. XP lets you reconsider and modify the design throughout the development life cycle. SignatureDale King >In two Java job interviews, interviewers asked me if I know extreme >programming. I don't. > >What is Java extreme programming? Is it marketable skill? see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/extremeprogramming.html SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. >> In two Java job interviews, interviewers asked me if I know extreme >> programming. I don't. >> >> What is Java extreme programming? Is it marketable skill? > > see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/extremeprogramming.html wow you have surpassed yourself! a link to your site where the page is nothing but 3 listings of xp books and links to various book sellers - a potential money earning page I suppose, but not very useful for the op. >> see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/extremeprogramming.html > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and links to various book sellers - a potential money earning page I >suppose, but not very useful for the op. You missed the main link to http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. >>> see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/extremeprogramming.html >> wow you have surpassed yourself! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You missed the main link to http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ So why not post that link instead of your revenue generating one? >a link to your site where the page is nothing but 3 listings of xp books >and links to various book sellers - a pote You have a lot of nerve, day after day sniping away at me like some catty drag queen, expecting me to both do all the work of maintaining the java glossary AND funding it totally out of my own not very deep pockets. The last royalty check I got for book sales was $137 in 2005-06. You know what that works out to an hour? It is a negative amount when you factor in the costs. What are you, a communist? Why do you think everyone but you should work for free and spend their money to serve an ungrateful c.nt like you? Who the hell you do you think you are, Queen Elizabeth? I have had it with you. I don't care how intelligent you are, you are a royal pain in the a.s. You or are not worth it. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. >> a link to your site where the page is nothing but 3 listings of xp books >> and links to various book sellers - a pote [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I have had it with you. I don't care how intelligent you are, you are > a royal pain in the a.s. You or are not worth it. 'he shoots, he scores!' > [.. the usual...] > > 'he shoots, he scores!' ;-) -- chris >> [.. the usual...] >> >> 'he shoots, he scores!' > > ;-) You aren't condoning this person's behavior, are you? -- LTP :) > You aren't condoning this person's behavior, are you? Since you ask, yes. (Assuming that by "this person" you mean Andrew rather than Roedy.) -- chris I wrote: > > You aren't condoning this person's behavior, are you? > > Since you ask, yes. This has been bugging me; the verb "condone" doesn't seem quite right. I think a more precise term would be "applaud". -- chris > 'he shoots, he scores!' Indeed. There are some Usenetters entry into whose killfiles is actively sought. FWIW xanthian. > The last royalty check I got for book sales was $137 in 2005-06. You > know what that works out to an hour? It is a negative amount when you > factor in the costs. What are you, a communist? So I've been thinking about how to say this clearly. I think there's a valid point here besides alleged communism of members of the newsgroup. The Java Glossary, for better or worse, acts as a kind of FAQ in these newsgroups. When a thread is answered by linking to an entry in the Java Glossary, there's an implicit statement there: "Don't try to continue the conversation; you've been answered, and I'm done with it." It's rather difficult to quote and respond to content from the Glossary in a nice format, so that's likely to stop right there. The placing of the response on a web site implies a kind of finality... and whether intended or not, a mild rebuke for posting the question onto a discussion group in the first place, since you obviously didn't think it was worth discussing. There are times when this is reasonable. Nobody tends to mind when the topic is about how to solve a NoClassDefFoundError, since that's not a particularly interesting conversation to begin with. Some topics, such as pointing out that Java is not JavaScript, may well benefit greatly from that kind of finality since the conversation is unlikely to go anywhere interesting. However, if the thread is about doing XP in Java, that kind of finality is misleading and deprives the group of discussion. When the content of the Java Glossary page is especially sketchy, as it was in this case, it starts to look like an outright insult. This newsgroup is for discussion of all kinds, not strict Q&A. Members of this newsgroup gain something from talking to each other that couldn't be gained from reading a lot of static content somewhere. Posting links to the Glossary certainly seems like an attempt to stop that discussion. Hence, I don't think the grievance relates to money at all. The financial gain doesn't help, of course -- but it's only a problem because the response was harmful in the first place. The Glossary even seems to be a useful resource to many people. However, I do prefer to see people participating in the community here instead of being redirected elsewhere. I forget where I first saw this, but I think it's a fairly reasonable statement: "Efficiency is the opposite of community." No offense intended to anyone: this all just seemed worth saying. SignatureChris Smith > > The last royalty check I got for book sales was $137 in 2005-06. You > > know what that works out to an hour? It is a negative amount when you [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > No offense intended to anyone: this all just seemed worth saying. I certainly like the Glossary for its comprehensiveness. It is however replete with a lot of other content. The Glossary shouldn't however monopolize the role of being a FAQ. This is not a group about chicken pox where there are limited numbers of answers. Indeed, with Java, there are all kinds or resources out there. e.g.: Javaworld, The Server Side, Java Best Practices, On Java, ProgrammingTutorials.com, etc etc. I know that other links do make it here. Everyone has the right to express their preferred resources. But if there is an ulterior motive, I find that something to be frowned upon. Many resources are the kind that do one thing and one thing well. However, appropriatness of information and getting an answer to the question or a useful comment to the discussion is priority. If someone disagrees with the appropriateness of a particular resource, they can post one of their own IMHO and that will say most of what needs to be said in such a situation where it is a common question/frequently asked. It would be nice if there was a community FAQ for java somewhere. Perhaps someone can create a site for that. John Gagon > I certainly like the Glossary for its comprehensiveness. It is however > replete with a lot of other content. The Glossary shouldn't however > monopolize the role of being a FAQ. Does it? Andrew Thompson maintained a FAQ for a while, and there's also JINX where I have put a lot of information that I think should be documented from this group. For a while Peter van der Linden maintained a FAQ in actual Q&A format, but I haven't seen it mentioned recently and it's likely out of date or gone. Of course, anyone else is welcome to put something together. If your complaint is about the political and social content of Roedy's web page, then that's your issue to deal with, whether by staying on the Glossary pages or by not using the resource if it really bothers you. It doesn't make the Java Glossary any worse of a resource. > Indeed, with Java, there are all kinds or resources out there. e.g.: > Javaworld, The Server Side, Java Best Practices, On Java, > ProgrammingTutorials.com, etc etc. Sure, and if someone started replying to every post with links to those resources, the exact same complaints would apply. This is a discussion forum. While it may be useful to know about all of those resources, they don't serve the same need as this group either. I've occasionally found JavaWorld articles quite helpful, for instance, but this group should no more become a pointer to JavaWorld than a pointer to the Java Glossary. I'd prefer to see someone's opinion than a link to a resource that Google could have found just as well. > It would be nice if there was a community FAQ for java somewhere. > Perhaps someone can create a site for that. That's supposed to be the JINX wiki. Jon Skeet first created it a couple years ago, and I've attempted to reincarnate it after the first server died and the content was lost. http://riters.com/JINX Signaturewww.designacourse.com The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere. Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer MindIQ Corporation >Sure, and if someone started replying to every post with links to those >resources, the exact same complaints would apply. A poster is looking for information. The best place to view my information is in a web browser. It is formatted and hyperlinked. It would be asinine to convert it back to raw text just to give the illusion I had just dashed it off the top of my head and to save someone the effort of a mouse click. I am quite ill and constantly seek to create maximal effect for minimal energy output. Your suggestion would take a lot of extra work and would reduce my effectiveness. So I am not about to use it. I post the URLs almost reflexively, "I recall I have an entry on that. Give him the URL. It might help." The "finality" and my desire to stop discussion is your illusion. I am simply tossing some more sources of information into the ring. I don't have anywhere near the energy for discussion or exposition I once did. Perhaps you are taking my lack of participation as a desire to silence the discussion. In other newsgroups people use URLs all the time, and if people want to discuss that material they quote it. What is stopping you from doing that if you disagree with something in the glossary? I get many emails each day with suggestion to improve the glossary. You could do that too. It strange how people tend to presume every omission or error is deliberate. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. >>Sure, and if someone started replying to every post with links to those >>resources, the exact same complaints would apply. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > You could do that too. It strange how people tend to presume every > omission or error is deliberate. Personally I wouldn't care if you were "advertising" your site. I feel my life is a little better because I found it. ( It wouldn't have happened if you only posted links intermittently. I disagree with Chris that there is any problem in posting a link. -- LTP :) On Wed, 17 May 2006 14:37:20 -0600, "Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamlicious_z_XXX_m@cc.usu.edu> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >I disagree with Chris that there is any problem in posting a link. I went to a heck of a lot of work to format that information in tables, to hyperlink it up the yin yang, to colourise the source code and in some entries to provide diagrams, to use icons to help find what you are looking for rapidly and warn you of gotchas. Why would I want you to view that work in degraded form? I might as well have composed the Java glossary in raw ASCII text like a traditional FAQ. Obviously there are a million things to be improved (and I welcome those suggestion and implement as many as I have energy for), but the main criticism seems to be it was wrongful of me to compose the glossary in the first place and improper for me to point people to sections of it that may help them. I was trying to do the world a favour. Because of HIV likely cutting my life short, I desperately want to do something important and good as a legacy. From my point of view I did the planet a favour. It is so infuriating to have my gift thrown back in my face as if it were some selfish criminal act. Until you have done something similar, you have absolutely no idea how much work is entailed. Look how many people abandoned FAQ-like projects even smaller than the glossary. Why? 1. It is so darn much work. 2. The rewards have to come from knowing you are doing the right thing, not from praise or money. 3. You have to put up with people doing their best to rain on your parade and attack you personally. You have to put up with endless petty personal criticism as if every error or piece of stale information were deliberate malice.. Everyone once in a while, e.g. after one of Chris Smith's bitchy snipes, I say to myself "f.ck EM". If they are going to be such shitheads, I'll just close down the glossary. Why should I put in time attempting to help people who actively despise me and my work? But that is exactly what Chris wants. The "f.ck em" also sounds too much like Mom and her "I worked my fingers to the bone" trip. I am not asking for thanks, just laying off the generic barbs. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. > 3. You have to put up with people doing their best to rain on your > parade and attack you personally. You have to put up with endless > petty personal criticism as if every error or piece of stale > information were deliberate malice.. Your main page has over a million hits. Negative people/people who have a problem/objection just seem to be a little more outspoken. With a million hits, I imagine there are a lot of silent "pleased" visitors. You violate the status quo on many levels - with your religious and political beliefs and your sexual orientation. Simply discussing a controversial topic is enough to piss many people off. You got up and fought a battle for homosexuals and you probably made significant progress at, presumably, some cost to you. I don't know what I'm trying to say - I don't have a point. On a more personal note, I certainly hope things improve with your health. A university professor in my homestate of Utah believes that she has found a way to design molecules which target and bind specific virii and believes a similar method could be used to also attack [specific] fungi, bacteria and protozoa. Her primary interest is curing AIDS, and some prelim lab work looks like she might be getting close. -- LTP :) On Wed, 17 May 2006 22:41:23 -0600, "Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamlicious_z_XXX_m@cc.usu.edu> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Your main page has over a million hits. Negative people/people who have a >problem/objection just seem to be a little more outspoken. With a million >hits, I imagine there are a lot of silent "pleased" visitors. Of course, you are right. I don't that often write someone a general note of thanks. The emails I send are usually a typo or a suggested rewording. If somebody uses the glossary and then comes back again, that is a tacit vote of confidence that they found my work useful. I expect the knives to come out over the things I say on the other parts of the website, and the venom in response has never bothered me in the least. You can read some of the spicier stuff at http://mindprod.com/feedback/peace.html In my early gay lib work I got about 300 abusive phone calls, and a average of 3 death threats a day. Yet suddenly I become ultra sensitive about a rather mild personal attack every month or so on the glossary. Illogical! SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. > On Wed, 17 May 2006 22:41:23 -0600, "Luc The Perverse" > <sll_noSpamlicious_z_XXX_m@cc.usu.edu> wrote, quoted or indirectly [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > day. Yet suddenly I become ultra sensitive about a rather mild > personal attack every month or so on the glossary. Illogical! Oh I like that link! I will have to check it out in more detail tomorrow. Wait a minute. A LINK! HOW DARE YOU??!!! j/k Not really too illogical - you expect people to get upset if you tell them that they are wrong, you don't expect criticism for giving people a gift. -- LTP :) > I am not > asking for thanks, just laying off the generic barbs. You may not be asking, but for myself, thank you. Your examples have helped me many times and your input into advancing usable knowledge is greatly appreciated. Jeff Coffield > This is a discussion forum. One significant advantage of which, when compared to essentially static web pages, is that posts are subject to public peer review and debate. (And just don't get me started on "blogs" -- I suspect that some here are closet bloggers and I might easily cause offence) -- chris >> This is a discussion forum. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -- chris Yes please dont start on blogs.... what with me too, we'd never finish pissing the bloggers off! On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:38:28 +0100, "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >One significant advantage of which, when compared to essentially static web >pages, is that posts are subject to public peer review and debate. The biggest theoretical problem is the link can go away, or the referenced text can change. With newsgroup postings you have a permanent record of the precise debate. One if of the nicest features of newsgroup debates as you can settle definitively charges of the form "but you said...". With the Agent browser, a link is much easier to deal with than someone who quotes everything, relevant or not. Some of these debates could melt away with technology to make referencing links faster and if quoting were handled so attributions were automatic and you had windows to control just how much volume you were prepared to look at in a quote. For me, rarely is more than a few lines of a quote needed to put the comment in context. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. > For me, rarely is more than a few lines of a quote > needed to put the comment in context. I agree. I check NGs at least daily - so it isn't like I have forgotten what a discussion was about - I merely need a reminder. Although I don't know how we got started talking about this ^^ -- LTP :) On Thu, 18 May 2006 14:27:55 -0600, "Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamlicious_z_XXX_m@cc.usu.edu> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >I agree. I check NGs at least daily - so it isn't like I have forgotten >what a discussion was about - I merely need a reminder. > >Although I don't know how we got started talking about this ^^ Chris was chastising me for using links. I then pointed out it depends on your tool which is awkward, a link, excessive quoting, attribution. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. > Chris was chastising me for using links. I then pointed out it > depends on your tool which is awkward, a link, excessive quoting, > attribution. Me? I wasn't chastising you. I regret the misunderstanding, if what I said was taken that way. I would prefer to see significant posts to the newsgroup instead of links, but you are free to do what you like. I merely pointed out that it's more likely the links, and not the partner fees from online bookstores, that bother people. If you want to know who was bothered, I'd suggest you look further up the thread. Signaturewww.designacourse.com The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere. Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer MindIQ Corporation >> Chris was chastising me for using links. I then pointed out it >> depends on your tool which is awkward, a link, excessive quoting, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > fees from online bookstores, that bother people. If you want to know > who was bothered, I'd suggest you look further up the thread. Hands up...it was me that experienced annoyance of Roedy's link. I wasn't offended by it - just annoyed. I wasn't offended by the fact he posted a link to his site. I wasn't offended by Roedy's reply. However, I was annoyed that as an answer to the OPs question, Roedy posted a link to his a PAGE of his site, where the page contained a very short and mostly WRONG description of what XP is, plus one additional link to http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ Aside from that, it contained a whole suite of links to various book shops. So my point was, if thats all it contains, then it would be better to simply post the http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ link instead or have the page redirect the user to http://www.extremeprogramming.org/. Roedy's site does contain a lot of useful info for newbies, no one, including myself denies this. But pages like this damage his reputation (at least in my eyes) as it comes across as being a money generating link scheme instead of a useful resource. Andrew (Your favourite (psuedo) commie ;-) ) On Thu, 18 May 2006 18:35:54 GMT, Roedy Green <my_email_is_posted_on_my_website@munged.invalid> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >The biggest theoretical problem is the link can go away, or the >referenced text can change. With newsgroup postings you have a >permanent record of the precise debate. One if of the nicest features >of newsgroup debates as you can settle definitively charges of the >form "but you said...". The big advantage of a link is freshness. If I put information on a web page I can correct, update, freshen at any time, and anyone finding my post in groups.google.com linking to it will be taken to the freshest information. If I had inserted the information inline, they would get stale information. I may have even elsewhere repudiated it utterly, but they would still see it as valid. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. >> This is a discussion forum. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (And just don't get me started on "blogs" -- I suspect that some here are > closet bloggers and I might easily cause offence) What have you got against blogs? I use blogs as a disorganized way to record things on my mind. My readers find my blogs entertaining (although I would prefer if they found them thought provoking) -- LTP :) [me:] > > (And just don't get me started on "blogs" -- I suspect that some here > > are closet bloggers and I might easily cause offence) > > What have you got against blogs? I said /DON'T/ get me started ! ;-) -- chris > Dear All, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thank you. Here's a tip for you - if you dont know extreme programming (XP), then please dont try and bluff your way through it the next time you have an interview and they mention it. Its so easy for us to tell those that have used it versus those that have only read about it. We'd prefer it if you were clear 'I've read about it but I've never done it so cant say much about it' my 2 cents as being someone who routinely interviews for XP Java developers. Andrew PS: If there are any XP experienced Java developers in the Essex area of the UK, looking for new job, let me know! Leo <xxx@nospam.com> wrote on Wed, 10 May 2006 11:25:17 +0000 in comp.lang.java.programmer: >Dear All, > >In two Java job interviews, interviewers asked me if I know extreme >programming. I don't. > >What is Java extreme programming? Is it marketable skill? Here's an interesting perspective on extreme programming: http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=11 SignatureCheck out QueryForm, a free, open source, Java/Swing-based front end for relational databases. http://qform.sourceforge.net If you're a musician, check out RPitch Relative Pitch Ear Training Software. http://rpitch.sourceforge.net > Leo <xxx@nospam.com> wrote on Wed, 10 May 2006 11:25:17 +0000 in > comp.lang.java.programmer: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=11 Don't have time to dig into your net presence, but I'm going to comment on that page. While I agree with the necessity of saying many of the things that are said in that, the charge of "cultism" it levels seems to me to ignore some facts of life: ] Sense of higher purpose Is this evil? Is it inherently bad to seek or hope for, or believe in, a higher purpose? Sure, using such an assertion of higher purpose as a basis of discrimination tends to evil, but is the problem in the assertion or the application? ] Loaded language It seems to me I can find loaded language in anything, including the page linked. I'm not sure it's possible to promote or defend any point of view without resorting to language that is at least potentially loaded. (The list I am critiquing is, in and of itself, an example of language that has become loaded.) Moreover, what is the difference between "loaded language" and mere differences in assumptions concerning semantics, other than the question of what is in vogue today? Is there an way to avoid the problem of semantics? (This last question is particularly relevant in any forum devoted to computer languages.) ] Creation of an exclusive community Again, is this necessarily evil? (Do you see the loaded language in use here?) Anytime you have a non-universal context, those who participate in the context will become, by definition, something of an exclusive community. They do not, of course, have to form an exclusionary community. Enforcing an exclusiveness is usually counter-productive, in addition to being an exercise in prejudice. ] Persuasive leadership Is there evil inherent in either persuasion or leading, or even in doing both at the same time? Isn't the problem in the direction of the leading, the form or methods of leadership, the techniques and methods of persuasion? Truth itself can't be evil, but can sometimes be viewed as cruel persuasion by some suddenly exposed to some aspect with which they have not been previously familiar. Yeah, trying to persuade people against their will can cause problems, and attempting to lead people to disbelieve what is true is just plain bad. But those are not the only uses of persuasive leadership. (Debating whether to point out that arguing against argumentation is an exercise in reflexive counterfuge.) ] Revisionism Again, is it inherently evil? As an engineer, I have been taught to celebrate the principle of step-wise refinement. But, looking at the bottom line, I do not know any mortals who know every truth there is. It may be possible to know every practical truth within a small context, but when one leaves that context, some of the truths of the small context lose relevance, some shift in their expression or application. And there will be other truths which were not known or applicable in the small context. The truths themselves may not change, but our view and understanding of them does. There is absolute truth, but it is very difficult for us to get such a perfect view that our view never needs revision. Even if I can imagine living a thousand years, I can be pretty sure there's going to be plenty of unknowns left. Put in the negative, if absolute truth could be known to a degree beyond revision by people who have a life expectancy of less than a hundred years, what use would absolute truth be, even to the one person capable of comprehending it all in such a short time, much less to the rest of the human race, and to any other intelligent beings that might exist somewhere? ] Aura of sacred science Granted that most people are familiar with the semantic of the phrase currently in vogue, I should note that the original meaning of "sacred" is not so much something limited to the use of a high priesthood, but simply the assertion of limits and the reminder of the evils of misuse. There are things which we, as a society, limit to the use of those trained in their uses (and often we overset the limits, even in modern times). But there have always been sacred things ordinary people use, being cautioned not to misuse them. Science is definitely something we should be careful to use appropriately rather than misuse. One very inappropriate misuse of science is the assertion that science itself is beyond the common man, but, as I said, most people are familiar with that sense these days. In times past, "sacred freedom" meant that we should defend our freedom and not abuse it, nor abuse others with it. In those times, I think "sacred science" meant almost the opposite of what it is assumed to mean now. Not meaning to dump on anyone, but this method of analysis by listing the "occult" attributes of some feature of society is one of my pet peeves. joseph_daniel_zukiger@yahoo.com wrote on 13 May 2006 04:09:06 -0700 in comp.lang.java.programmer: >> Leo <xxx@nospam.com> wrote on Wed, 10 May 2006 11:25:17 +0000 in >> comp.lang.java.programmer: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Don't have time to dig into your net presence, but I'm going to comment >on that page. Ouch. I didn't realize that my posting a link to an unflattering article on XP would result in someone "digging into my net presence." >Not meaning to dump on anyone, but this method of analysis by listing >the "occult" attributes of some feature of society is one of my pet >peeves. The article used the word "cult", not "occult." There's a big difference. SignatureCheck out QueryForm, a free, open source, Java/Swing-based front end for relational databases. http://qform.sourceforge.net If you're a musician, check out RPitch Relative Pitch Ear Training Software. http://rpitch.sourceforge.net > joseph_daniel_zukiger@yahoo.com wrote on 13 May 2006 04:09:06 -0700 in > comp.lang.java.programmer: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Ouch. I didn't realize that my posting a link to an unflattering > article on XP would result in someone "digging into my net presence." Sorry, I didn't intend that to sound threatening. I just wanted to say I was too lazy to figure out if that page was yours or whether it reflected your pov on either of the subjects. > >Not meaning to dump on anyone, but this method of analysis by listing > >the "occult" attributes of some feature of society is one of my pet > >peeves. > > The article used the word "cult", not "occult." There's a big > difference. Point taken, however, there are an awful lot of people who don't bother to try to distinguish between "cult" and "occult". (Ergo, the word "cult" itself can be loaded language, which means that attributing the use of loaded language to cults is something of a semantic whirlpool.) I didn't find the page informative, pro, con, or explanatory. My impression is, "Okay, someone had a bad experience with XP and/or some of the people who claim to practice it." Other than that, I come away no wiser about XP. And, as far as making parallels about cults, I come away thinking, according to that point of view, society is nothing more than a large collection of cults. I can't think of any social institution that can't be pegged as a cult according to that method of analysis. That's my opinion. YMMV. > > http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=11 > [...] > While I agree with the necessity of saying many of the things that are > said in that, the charge of "cultism" it levels seems to me to ignore > some facts of life: I don't know what the author's motivations were, there seems to be a certain amount of over-statement. But once you've stripped that out, there seems to be a fairly interesting and even sensible message remaining. The thrust of the article is not to say "XP is a cult" (still less that "XP is an evil cult"), but to point out that XP -- considered purely as a /social/ phenomenon, shares many of the self-reinforcing features that are found in cults and other strong social groupings (both good and bad). That's to say that -- whatever the technical merits or demerits of the movement -- it is /also/ a social phenomenon. And, what's more, it has these self reinforcing features which operate independently of the technical content. And why is that relevant to the rest of us ? Because if we want to evaluate the technical qualities of XP, we should be careful to (try to) allow for the social mechanisms which, in part, maintain it. For instance, we should be wary of deducing that XP must be good because few people try it (/really/ try it, I mean) and decide it's not for them. (I don't know if that is actually true, this is just an invented example). It could be that those (hypothetical) people's reasons were entirely objective, but it is also possible that they were partly or completely swayed by the sociological factors. -- chris On Mon, 15 May 2006 15:05:57 +0100, "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > Because if we want to evaluate >the technical qualities of XP, we should be careful to (try to) allow for the >social mechanisms which, in part, maintain it You are being too kind to XP. Imagine designing a project by starting with the XP API and using that as a set of abstractions to think with. Then do the same thing with the Java API. You can't help but have a cleaner design with Java. XP has is its roots in DOS with Windows real 80286 mode and 64K segments, that gradually evolved layer upon layer with a considerable amount of compatibility. Java got a much more recent clean start and had the advantage of going multiplatform, which tends to shave off quirky warts. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. > On Mon, 15 May 2006 15:05:57 +0100, "Chris Uppal" > <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> wrote, quoted or indirectly [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > had the advantage of going multiplatform, which tends to shave off > quirky warts. Umm, Roedy, the XP being discussed here was extreme programming not Windoze XP. SignatureDale King >Umm, Roedy, the XP being discussed here was extreme programming not >Windoze XP. oops. Never mind. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. >> Umm, Roedy, the XP being discussed here was extreme programming not >> Windoze XP. > > oops. Never mind. We didn't - it was a nice relief to a dull day :) > On Mon, 15 May 2006 15:05:57 +0100, "Chris Uppal" > <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> wrote, quoted or indirectly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You are being too kind to XP. Um, I think somewhere a discussion about XP (eXtreme Programming) turned into a discussion about XP (Windows XP). Totally different things. > ] Revisionism > Again, is it inherently evil? Absolutely. > As an engineer, I have been taught to celebrate the principle of > step-wise refinement. Sorry, that is not even close to what the quoted paper meant by "revisionism". It detailed quite clearly the _intellectually dishonest_ citing as an example of the initial success of XP a project which was, in fact, a flop. The "revisionism" there is _historical revisionism_, rewriting history to make it be the way you wish it had been, instead of the way it was, to support come current agenda of yours, something extremely popular in the Soviet Union in the days of Joseph Stalin, something done long past by the then Christian church to throw away all but a few of the existing descriptions of the life of Christ, to retain only that set (as "Gospels") that agreed with their then current politics. Given that XP advocates need this kind of lying to attract and retain adherents, I wouldn't have characterized XP as a cult, but, even less favorably, as a religion. FWIW xanthian. > Here's an interesting perspective on extreme programming: > http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=11 Yes, that's quite a bit closer to my gut evaluation of XP, a technology for those who cannot handle CMM level 3. XP is great for one up, throwaway projects, I suppose, and since that represents lots of software produced in the real world, whether by intention or not, it has a place in the software industry, I cannot conceive, though, of accepting employment in a situation where maintenance of code created by XP was part of the workload. xanthian. >> Here's an interesting perspective on extreme programming: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > world, whether by intention or not, it has a place in the > software industry, You should take a look at... http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/articles/paulk/xp-from-a-cmm-perspective.html It shows where and how XP matches against each level. > I cannot conceive, though, of accepting employment in a > situation where maintenance of code created by XP was > part of the workload. > > xanthian. Why? Code that is completely covered with automated Acceptance and Unit tests is not good enough for your maintenance? Not to mention the design docs that most teams will create if required. > I cannot conceive, though, of accepting employment in a > situation where maintenance of code created by XP was > part of the workload. Neither could I until we tried it at the firm I was working with. Our productivity went up by |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message