From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.r-kom.de!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsr1.ipcore.viaginterkom.de!news-peer1!btnet-feed3!btnet!carbon.eu.sun.com!new-usenet.uk.sun.com!not-for-mail From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request Date: 01 Sep 2004 09:21:04 +0200 Organization: Sun Microsystems Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: khepri06.norway.sun.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: new-usenet.uk.sun.com 1094023265 1097 129.159.112.195 (1 Sep 2004 07:21:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@new-usenet.uk.sun.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Sep 2004 07:21:05 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.2 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3238 Date: 2004-09-01T07:21:05+00:00 List-Id: >>>>> "LD" == Lionel DRAGHI writes: LD> | -----Message d'origine----- LD> | De: kevin.cline@gmail.com [mailto:kevin.cline@gmail.com] LD> ... LD> | LD> | The efficacy of much pre-code activity is debatable. Many LD> | organizations have had great success with more agile methods of LD> | minimal up-front design followed by test-driven development and LD> | continuous refactoring. LD> Test-driven development includes a part of "pre-code activities". In fact, LD> test-driven development is an odd name, because it's as much about design LD> than about test. LD> As you said, even wit agile methods, there is still an up-front design to LD> do. LD> Refactoring may let's people thinks that starting almost without design is LD> less risky with Agile methods, but that's plain wrong. LD> No one can afford periodically refactoring the whole project because of a LD> poor architecture. LD> Settling down the initial design requires experienced and smart guys, LD> whatever is the method. Yes, I agree. However maybe there is less resistance to doing restructuring of the system when it is needed with agile methods? This could be a good thing, in many large projects you tend to get stuck with the initial design when the system evolves. Sometimes you would be better off with a major redesign, but it is often put off. On the other hand, I cannot really see how test-driven development and continuous refactoring would work on a 2 million LOC soft real time distributed RDBMS. Usually, there just isn't a substitute for good design. LD> So, I don't think there is less time on design and more time on coding in LD> agile methods. The time is just distributed in a different way. LD> -- LD> Lionel Draghi -- C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.