RE: ??? (was RE: A simple guy with a simple problem)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Or write focused requirements, avoid the 
We Are The World hype, and  use a spec 
based on what some "customer" wants.   
Nothing about what has been suggested in 
XP sounds like more than decent 
project management.  Keep the moles 
from digging too deep a hole until 
one is sure where the water is.  XP is yet one 
more attempt to build hype around 
what is for any good programming 
team I ever worked for, common 
sense.   Do it if it works but don't 
use it as simply another rallying cry to 
create a polity to be aimed at yet 
another problem that can be solved 
by reading the manual.

Can you square the scope of the specs against the 
myth of Internet time?  Too little, 
you lose to the BigGuys.  Too much, 
it doesn't get done.  Where is the 
sweet spot?  That is all XP or functional 
programming, or functional scheduling 
has to solve.  Here, we read the RFPs 
and count requests.  If they go 
above a threshhold, they go on the 
schedule.  So far, we are profitable.

I am looking at the Nasdaq.  Those 
"successes" now known as dot.bombs 
have come home like chickens to roost. 
I want to see XML be the thing that 
really does something more than 
pull a page to a browser.  That 
we can do already and by convincing 
people it was enough, $200 billion in 
wealth just disappeared.  That ain't sweet.

I read the Taxi article.  Nice piece.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]

At 03:47 PM 14/03/01 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>We can't treat XML 
>spec work as an XP programming 
>exercise.

I think that is *exactly* what the W3C should start
doing.  And if you look at its successes, you detect a
strong XP flavor - don't bite off too much, fix the
three biggest problems and then see what the next big
problem is, etc.  -Tim