Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Didier PH Martin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>, email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:45:41 -0500
>> Didier PH Martin said:
Its a question of adapting the XP method to modern technologies. So even if
XP seems a modern methodology, the XP book author obviously do not live with
the 21st century tools :-)
Since when does being a 21st century tool mean being a more productive tool?
When it facilitate communication or help share the same workspace. In fact,
the goal of XP is not so much to have only one machine per two developers
but the duo to share the same workspace.
XP is an outgrowth of practical experience with developing production code
within modern methodologies/fads, management practices/fads and
technologies/fads in highly changing business environments. It is as far as
I know the only methodology to date that properly addresses constant change
in code and business requirements while holding down a clean, working,
maintainable code base. So it is definitely a method for '21st century'
projects, especially 'internet time' projects.
Yes I agree, except that now that we can share the same workspace, to be two
on the same machine is unnecessary. The 21st century tools help us fulfill
the goal of XP without going to have a single machine for a duo ( a 20th
century solution to the problem of a shared workspace)
Conclusion: XP works but adapt it to your modern
environment, the XP book author do not live in the same century as us :-)
but some point he brought are inspiring.
If by 'the author' you mean Kent Beck, some people in the OO/Patterns world
think he's one of the best programmers on the planet, certainly one of the
most productive. He very much lives in the same century as the rest of us.
Ok maybe I was **extreme** in my comment :-) And perhaps Kent is among the
best programmers but it remains that the book is not up to date with the
current technologies (at least on one facette). So, maybe the book need an
update or that Kent try new shared workspace techniques. Notice that I
didn't criticized XP only the requirement to have a duo to share the same
machine. My point is that, in fact, the goal is to share the same workspace,
that a duo work on a same module, that both think, code and test the module,
that two brains is probably better than a single one. yes we discovered this
notion in our day to day work. So Bill, do not mis-interpret out of the
context (i.e. the discussion thread) my whole point which is that a duo for
a single machine is a 20th century solution and that - in the 21st century -
both can have a machine, both do not need to be in the same place and
finally that both can share the same workspace. I simply said to adapt the
principles to the modern tools, not that Kent is a second order programmer
nor that I said that XP is bad since we apply most of the XP principles in
our day to day work.
Didier PH Martin
Conferences: xml devcon 2000 (http://www.xmldevcon2000.com)
Wireless Summit NY (http:www.pulver.com)
xml devcon 2001 London (http://www.xmldevcon2000.com)
Book: XML Professional (http://www.wrox.com)
column: xml.com (http://www.xml.com)