XP versus "Charmingly 1970's"

From: james_in_denver <james_in_denver_at_hotpop_dot_com>
Date: Thu May 27 2004 - 00:21:29 CDT

Hello all,

My thoughts are XP works well when the organization is solely
responsible for the release and implementation of new features. However
given the constraints that each and every release must be submitted to
an external verification/acceptance process that may last several
months, this leads me to believe that this is not an acceptable release
cycle. For development/internal review cycles XP works just fine. But
when it comes to verification/acceptance, I personally feel that a more
structured release approach is required.

James Acomb

On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 14:44, Arthur Keller wrote:
> At 2:22 PM -0400 5/25/04, David Mertz wrote:
> >>I strongly disagree. We need to do a complete design exercise
> >>first. Everything I've seen about system design says that you need
> >>to design the system *before* implementing it.
> >
> >How charmingly 1970s :-).
> >
> >Not that I really buy most of the "extreme programming/agile
> >development" schtick... but I buy enough of if than I blanch when I
> >hear about all those other "software methodologies."
> Yes, I know about those kinds of design-and-implement systems. And
> I'm not advocating a waterfall model either. Yet we have not done an
> analysis of the demo system and lessons learned from it. We've not
> yet developed a system architecture document. All of those should be
> done *before* software development.
> Best regards,
> Arthur

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Mon May 31 23:18:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:17 CDT