RFD: comp.object.methodology.*
m_mcc...@my-deja.com
become a major topic in comp.object.*, and as
their is no other newsgroup devoted to
methodology, I'd like to propose creation of some
new groups.
Perhaps something like this:
comp.object.methodology
comp.object.methodology.catalysis
comp.object.methodology.extreme-programming
comp.object.methodology.omt
comp.object.methodology.unified-process
Submitted respectfully for discussion,
Mike McCormick
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
[ FAQ: http://www.indiainfo.com/comp.object.moderated.faq/ ]
[ * No Flames, No Spam, No Nonsense: Just OO discussion * ]
Ronald E Jeffries
>As OO development methodolgies (e.g., XP) have
>become a major topic in comp.object.*, and as
>their is no other newsgroup devoted to
>methodology, I'd like to propose creation of some
>new groups.
>
>Perhaps something like this:
>
> comp.object.methodology
> comp.object.methodology.catalysis
> comp.object.methodology.extreme-programming
> comp.object.methodology.omt
> comp.object.methodology.unified-process
I would just love to have a viable place for XP discussion (in
particular) to live, grow, and be preserved. I'm considering trying to
set up an XP newsgroup or mailing list.
At the same time, discussions about XP have shown up, and gone on for
a fairly long time, on several groups. It seems to me that it would be
good for the methdologies to have a home, and that it would not be
good to suppress methodology discussion on the other groups. (I
hasten to add that I got no sense that Mike was trying to suppress
discussion anywhere - that's a concern of mine, not one raised by his
proposal.)
To me, comp.object and comp.object.moderated are perfectly reasonable
forums for discussion of methodology. They have a wide range of
participants, and the braod range means we all get to learn more. Most
newsreaders are good about separating threads, so those who don't want
to read about XP (or about ISO frameworks for component-oriented
simulators) aren't exposed excessively.
So I'd vote for maybe ONE methodology group, but not at the expense of
discussion elsewhere.
Ron Jeffries
http://www.XProgramming.com
"Do not be hectoring or arrogant. Those who disagree with you
are not necessarily stupid or insane. Nobody needs to be
described as silly: let your analysis prove that he is."
... "The Economist" Style Guide
"Wish I could learn this ..."
... Ron Jeffries
Ronald E Jeffries
<oli...@hfl.tc.faa.gov> wrote:
>Ronald E Jeffries wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 09:37:25 GMT, m_mcc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > comp.object.methodology (etc)
>>
>> I would just love to have a viable place for XP discussion (in
>> particular) to live, grow, and be preserved. I'm considering trying to
>> set up an XP newsgroup or mailing list.
>
>Is this the simplest thing that could possibly work? ;-)
>
>What's wrong with the XP wiki?
The XP wiki isn't really very good for thread mode. Things get
modified and archived. And, for that matter, there is no XP wiki,
there's the Portland Patterns Repository which has a lto of XP in it.
>I think starting a new group (or more) would be a big mistake. I
>personally would never have gone to any *.methodology group first. The
>groups comp.object and comp.object.moderated and others) are where OO
>methodology discussions belong. I think it is important to have
>participants with a mix of methodology preferences and experiences in
>these discussions.
As I said elsewhere in my post, I tend to agree with that. I'm already
monitoring N groups for XP topics, and I think having the subject come
up there is serving those who are interested and could benefit. OTOH,
XP discussions tend to get hot sometimes and people who aren't
interested get bored with them.
I do have a discussion thing on XProgramming.com, but it gets very
little attention. It'd be nice to have a place for XPers to hang out.
But we'd still have to be roaming these halls.
Regards,
Ronald E Jeffries
<Perdita...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote: (RJ paraphrase)
>I'd vote for just
>
>comp.object.methodology.moderated
Me too. Then we could see what happens - might get busy, might not.
Ken Foskey
>
> To me, comp.object and comp.object.moderated are perfectly reasonable
> forums for discussion of methodology. They have a wide range of
> participants, and the braod range means we all get to learn more. Most
> newsreaders are good about separating threads, so those who don't want
> to read about XP (or about ISO frameworks for component-oriented
> simulators) aren't exposed excessively.
>
> So I'd vote for maybe ONE methodology group, but not at the expense of
> discussion elsewhere.
I agree with the ONE group. If it needs structuring later then it can
be.
XP can be discussed in context in other groups. Refactoring by Martin
Fowler comes into this there is some definite OO education inside it's
pages (enjoying it immensely) but it mainly is about better coding not
OO.
There comes a time where discussion floods the wrong groups. I am
please with the XP discussions so far and I have put Kent's book on my
list but I really would like a OO discussion to help me learn.
The only exception I can think of is UML. I think that there should
be specific locatable group for this. It is not a 'methodology', it
is a modelling language.
Thanks
Ken Foskey
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~waratah/
John Burton
Hash: SHA1
Ronald E Jeffries wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 04 Dec 1999 08:25:19 GMT, Perdita Stevens
><Perdita...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> wrote: (RJ paraphrase)
>
>>I'd vote for just
>>
>>comp.object.methodology.moderated
>
>Me too. Then we could see what happens - might get busy, might not.
comp.object.moderated does exactly have a huge volume of messages so
there doesn't seem a great deal of reason to split it at the moment.
A mailing list for specific subejcts like XP might work well though,
they seem
to work a bit differently from newsgroups.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgpinternational.com>
iQA/AwUBOEppvUGv3IG7bJU8EQLkiQCggxo3QjjRtH/nGnGOOvUxP62dovoAoKWR
fGUPirGL5++gwVnFnCm8Zom3
=BVmd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
nsi5700000-Perryman
> As OO development methodolgies (e.g., XP) have
> become a major topic in comp.object.*, and as
> their is no other newsgroup devoted to
> methodology, I'd like to propose creation of some
> new groups.
> Perhaps something like this:
> comp.object.methodology
Could do.
IMHO it should cover all methods.
> comp.object.methodology.catalysis
Not widely discussed (as of yet) .
> comp.object.methodology.extreme-programming
Could do.
However, debate currently as to whether XP is a 'fad' etc.
Better on a general 'methods' group ??
> comp.object.methodology.omt
Dead topic IMHO.
> comp.object.methodology.unified-process
Could do.
Regards,
Steven Perryman
Michael Wein
>
> I'd vote for just
>
> comp.object.methodology
>
> to avoid being overrun with the relevant subset of comp.object
> repetitive flaming (if flaming can be relevant). So how about
>
> comp.object.methodology.moderated
I strongly agree with you. One group for methodolgy topics should be
enough and moderation has proven useful as we can see from this group
(comp.object.moderated). Having a moderated methology newsgroup will
hopefully prevent us from "troll threads".
--
Michael Wein eurodata GmbH & Co. KG
Abteilung Datenbank und Systemanalyse
Tel: 0681-8808-793 Großblittersdorfer Straße 257-259
Fax: 0681-8808-800 66119 Saarbrücken
Anders J. Munch
>I'd vote for just
>
>comp.object.methodology
I'd vote against. I'd vote for
comp.programming.methodology
or comp.programming.methodology.moderated
though.
If there is a call for it,
comp.programming.methodology.object[.moderated]
could always be added later.
- Anders
Andy Glew
> become a major topic in comp.object.*
I've never quite understood this:
Why is XP linked to OO?
I don't see anything in Beck's books
that makes this linkage - and I think
that it would be regrettable if XP
methodology were limited to the OO
world, and not exposed to the sizeable
non-OO programming communities.
Perdita Stevens
programming is only a part of what's involved (and pace XP people, often a
small part). comp.software-eng.methodology.moderated would seem better if
we want to avoid specifying that we're interested in objects.
Perdita
Dave Harris
> Why is XP linked to OO?
It relies on change being cheap, and a principle aim of OO is to make
change cheap.
I think it's really linked to dynamic languages, and does less well in
languages which are OO but not so dynamic. If you have manifest type
declarations, for example, they act as a drag on refactoring, and many
of
the errors they catch are also caught by unit tests. XP originated with
Smalltalk which is both OO and dynamic, and lacks manifest types.
Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK | "Weave a circle round him thrice,
bran...@cix.co.uk | And close your eyes with holy dread,
| For he on honey dew hath fed
http://www.bhresearch.co.uk/ | And drunk the milk of Paradise."