Re: Pair programming [ was: Re: [tlug] [OT] Good IT Resume

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Josh Glover wrote:

> The only XP-ism that I outright reject is the lack of a "proper" spec...
> ..
> I wonder what, once Curt has understood precisely what I *mean*, he
> will flat-out disagree with from me. I suspect that the spec and PP
> issues are the only true gulfs from his POV as well, but I am putting
> words in his mouth. Curt?

It's not an entirely incorrect summary. But I think you're missing me on
some different levels here.

For example, you talk about a "proper" spec., and me not having one. I
consider myself to have an excelent spec. on my projects, in fact much
better than yours. From what I understand about your specifications, you
can neither execute them nor have a computer compare the spec with the
system to see if they match. I do both.

> XP proponents argue that other XP practices, such as refactoring
> and creating tests before even writing the code, produces code that
> doesn't need to be reviewed....

That seems to me to be quite a mischaracterization of XP. We like
extensive code review, in the sense that a lot of eyes get on the code
and a lot of feedback flows back. We just don't schedule separate times
and meetings for this; as with many other things, such as design and
testing, we do it in little bits continuously and contemporanously with
everything else.

What probably throws many people about XP is that XP tends to look not
at a particular process, but at the effect that process is supposed to
have, and tries to get that effect in the most efficient way possible.
The idea that I don't have a specification is one example of that. The
idea that there's no design in XP, when in fact there is lots and lots
of design work going on all the time, is another.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974
Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com