Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

XP at UML Event

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Universe

unread,
Sep 3, 2000, 6:10:38 PM9/3/00
to
I do not understand why you give prominence to sw engineering views that are
based upon a wish. Here's an excerpt from online Sept. 2000 issue:

#"What if," said Robert Martin, a former preacher who now uses his persuasive speaking skills to promote #Smalltalk guru Kent Beck’s Extreme Programming (XP) methodology, "you took a moment to suspend #disbelief and considered that–due to today’s technology–the cost of change is essentially flat. When costs #don’t change over time, up-front speculative work is a liability...."

"What if" by Martin denotes that he is supposing. Martin's "what if" has not
been proven. There is absolutely no study that shows the cost of change
remains the same throughput project development. Boehm has shown that the
cost of change rises the later it occurs in the development process.

#In such a world, Martin told a packed room at the UML World conference in New York city on June 14, #developers need a process that exploits a flat change/cost curve–and XP is that process.

Public letter to Software Development Editor:

Martin and it seems your periodical [SW Dev.] by emphasizing his point in the
latest 2 issues, seems to think that Martin's "what if" disproves Boehm. If
such a world existed then yes XP would be the most optimal process to apply to
most projects. But nowhere has Martin taken the second step and shown that
such a world exists.

In the real world that does exist since the same change is more costly later
in development, RUP like process where at least minimal overall investigation
and design based upon all key system use cases is generally the best process
for most projects. XP applies best when it is very difficult to investigate
use cases. And that does not necessarily include all projects with highly
volatile requirements even though that might be an indication of difficulty in
doing investigation. Again, primarily XP applies where it is very difficult
to investigate use cases/requirements.

Elliott
--
:=***=: Objective * Holistic * Overall pre-code Modelling :=***=:
Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
study Craftite vs. Full Blown OO: http://www.radix.net/~universe
copyright 2000 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied freely
only in comp., phil., sci. usenet & bitnet & otug.

0 new messages