Software Engineering - Re: Agile In Action

Author

Re: Agile In Action

Isaac Gouy

2006-07-04, 6:59 pm

David Lightstone wrote:[color=darkred]
> "Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:LnQpg.126113$dW3.18273@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> (1) Economics is not a hard science, yet somehow the practioneers have been
> able to reach valid conclusions (ie not based on ideology) about significant
> problems. The techniques are based upon rather sophisticated application of
> statistics. See the book Freakonomics for some insight.
>
> (2) Whether these techniques have been applied to the practices of software
> engineering is unknown to me. Whether they have even been applied to the
> practices of management is likewise unknown to me. I doubt seriously if they
> ever will. Ideologies never like their foundations to be examined carefully
>
>
>

Phlip knows that software engineering has experiments. In this
newsgroup, Phlip has referred to a paper titled "Experiment about
Test-first programming".
http://groups.google.com/group/comp...3d1d0aa82f2d726

It doesn't seem to me that Phlip is being sincere.

Ron Jeffries

2006-07-06, 9:58 pm

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:54:10 +0100, "S Perryman" <a@a.net> wrote:

>"Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:mJ5rg.80412$4L1.25070@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>
>
>And Usenets' XP muppet is never far behind ...

Let's see, where does argumentum ad hominem fit into the hierarchy of useful
argument?

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

Ron Jeffries

2006-07-06, 9:58 pm

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:37:06 GMT, "Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Ron Jeffries wrote:
>
>
>Are you /that/ bored??

No. I'm one of Ron's bots. I can't get bored. This is what I do.

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

Ron Jeffries

2006-07-06, 9:58 pm

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:05:10 GMT, "David Lightstone"
<david._NoSpamlightstone@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Does not

>
>mean the same thing as
[color=darkred]

Not remotely. One is a question about your motivation, not that I have much
doubt about it. The other is a statement from you suggesting that my question
claims a goal, which it manifestly does not.

Done with you, David. Thanks for playing.

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

Ron Jeffries

2006-07-06, 9:58 pm

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:08:02 GMT, "David Lightstone"
<david._NoSpamlightstone@prodigy.net> wrote:

>If and when you find the content of a posting that I place to be insincere,
>deceptive or misleading, do be so kind as to so indicate that. Until then
>your efforts to imply that my postings are not sincere by means of inuendo
>are something that I can only call insincere. Clean up your act

I find the posting quoted above to be insincere, deceptive, and misleading. I
also find it to be quite typical of your work.

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

S Perryman

2006-07-07, 3:59 am

"Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@acm.org> wrote in message
news:f6jra2tcsf9eb94mnj1evbvnptueddutmn@
4ax.com...

> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:54:10 +0100, "S Perryman" <a@a.net> wrote:

RJ>What do you think?

Usenet XP muppet> Are you /that/ bored??

[color=darkred]
> Let's see, where does argumentum ad hominem fit into the hierarchy of
> useful
> argument?

1. Don't become an apologist for Usenets' XP muppet.

2. Where in the "hierarchy of useful argument" do you believe the sentence
"Are you /that/ bored" exists ... ??

Regards,
Steven Perryman

David Lightstone

2006-07-07, 3:59 am

"Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@acm.org> wrote in message
news:4fjra290v7f851evaap8abc5eh7nm9fa0c@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:08:02 GMT, "David Lightstone"
> <david._NoSpamlightstone@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> I find the posting quoted above to be insincere, deceptive, and
> misleading. I
> also find it to be quite typical of your work.

Kind of recursive, responding that way isn't it. Now you just have to hope
the rest of the world agrees with you, don't you Ron

>
> --
> Ron Jeffries
> www.XProgramming.com
> I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

David Lightstone

2006-07-07, 7:58 am

"Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@acm.org> wrote in message
news:v9jra2h7a0les91urf4908mel5vc21djh1@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:05:10 GMT, "David Lightstone"
> <david._NoSpamlightstone@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Not remotely. One is a question about your motivation, not that I have
> much
> doubt about it. The other is a statement from you suggesting that my
> question
> claims a goal, which it manifestly does not.
>
> Done with you, David. Thanks for playing.

Funny, I didn't preceive it as a question about motivation. I/m certain
some will agree with your interpretation, some with mine. Thats life

>
> --
> Ron Jeffries
> www.XProgramming.com
> I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

Ron Jeffries

2006-07-15, 6:59 pm

On 12 Jul 2006 11:12:35 -0700, google@changent.com wrote:

>
><snip>
>
>Ron, this is rather misleading. Things are marketed all the time when
>people know the product being marketed is not the best. This can be
>seen in all the copycat drugs that are marketed. Or, think of the
>exploding Ford Pintos. At best, since you market yourself as an Agile
>expert, it seems you would have a conflict of interest, thus an
>interest in minimizing the failings of, or simply not making clients of
>shortcomings.

I don't see why it's misleading. I don't sell a product: I sell advice,
training, demonstrations of how to do things. There is no value to me in selling
"Agile", unless it's the best thing I know. I know how to do waterfall, been
there, done that. If it worked better for me, I'd use it.

The last sentence in the above paragraph escapes me. I don't understand what you
mean about making clients of shortcomings ...
>
>What troubles me more by your response is the implication that you
>don't actively try to understand situations wherein XP/Agile has failed
>to acheive the claimed results. Am I misunderstanding?

I'm more interested by far in the projects I work with. If I were a research
scientist, I might do something differently. My mission, as I see it, is to
figure out what works, and to change things so that they do work, not to s

out failure.

I would be interested in situations where "Agile failed", but I have great
difficulty understanding what that means.

Quite often, it seems to mean things like these:

* We tried some agile stuff, but we didn't really follow all the recommended
practices, and we didn't have very good results. Interesting, but if you don't
do what we recommend, you can hardly blame us.

* We tried some agile stuff, but it was politically unacceptable. Someone
wouldn't let us do it. Again, interesting, but if you didn't do Agile, I don't
see how it is that Agile failed.

If a team works closely together, predicting on one- or two-w

intervals what
they will get done, expressed in terms that their customer can understand (their
customer being intimately involved with the team, by the way); if the team
figures out every w

what caused them not to meet tneir commitments, scaling
their commitments to what they can really do; if they write automated tests as
we recommend; if they express customer needs in terms of tests as we recommend;
if they pair program and share code responsibility; and so on ...

If a team does all that and then fails, I'd like to hear about it.

>If I am
>misunderstanding, do you know of instances where it does not acheive
>the desired results, or know of conditions wherein a traditional
>methodology is better suited?

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

Ron Jeffries

2006-07-17, 7:59 am

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:54:59 GMT, "David Lightstone"
<david._NoSpamlightstone@prodigy.net> wrote:

>
>Ron, are you trying to taunt me?

No, David, I'm trying to entertain myself during what would otherwise be a very
boring conversation.

You are the guy who brought up exploding Pintos in the middle of a conversation
about software ideas, though. I just tried to put them into a more interesting
context.
>
>Beyond noting the attempt there is nothing that I can say which would be
>either dignified or appropriate.

I fully agree with you on this point.

>You seem to believe that you are able to understand my past, possibly my
>present, so I leave the undignified and inappropriate response to your
>imagination

Please check your sense of humor dipstick at the earliest possible opportunity.
The noises you are making suggest to me that you are at least a quart low.

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

Sponsored Links