Refactoring XP Interview "Source code is too complex to be a clear statement of intent. We need something simpler than code and unit tests to define our design – a Word document, or a class model, for example."
"I’ve worked on, trained people and provided tools to people on ballistic missile defense projects, the Space Station, the Hubble telescope, avionics systems, helicopter projects, military flight planning systems, command and control systems, etc. I was talking to a client of mine from a very large jet fighter project yesterday and I suggested they let the architecture of the fly-by-wire system evolve incrementally. We got a good laugh out of it. I think if people on these kinds of projects can manage to develop architectures and then design within the architecture, people doing business or e-commerce systems can, too."
"I’ve also worked with some incredibly talented programmers who would have been awful to pair with...I’d resist any process that wouldn’t allow me, as a manager, to make use of his skills. So I would never mandate pair programming. And of course, my big issue with XP’s approach is that pair programming is used as an excuse for not doing upfront design. That’s completely bogus, in my opinion."
Extreme Programming Refactored: The Case Against XP.
No comments:
Post a Comment