Re: XP versus "Charmingly 1970's"

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Mon May 31 2004 - 03:55:57 CDT

At 11:55 PM -0400 5/30/04, Greg Stern wrote:
> > But, some key parts of XP transplant very well into other contexts,
>> for example, incremental development, where rigorous acceptance tests
>> for each development increment are developed in advance of or in
>> parallel with that increment.
>I think we need to separate requirements and testing from design and
>implementation. In certain systems such as medical systems and probably
>election systems, it is very important to understand some key requirements
>and to define tests that ensure those requirements have been met. So
>therefore, I could agree that coming up with a requirements document and
>acceptance tests could make sense (though everyone should be clear that it is
>an expensive (in time) process). However, I would strongly argue that an XP
>design and implementation process is crucial in an open source, evolving
>> Doug Jones
>Greg Stern

Open source does not necessarily mean volunteer-run evolving
environment. The products of a conventional software development
process could be made open source. Some of the open-source voting
software may well be developed using the typical volunteer model.
But other open-source voting software will be done by paid employees
in a physically proximate group. You can guess which I want to lead
at UCSC.

Best regards,

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
= 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 23:18:14 2004

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