TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: "Dale Jr, William" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 16:40:46 -0600
Reply-To: Corey Minyard <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
From: Corey Minyard <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (22 lines)
Dale Jr, William wrote:

>That is how we do all projects - no requirements, no testing, no
>documents...  ;->
>"Better get coding because there will be a lot of debugging to do!"
You shouldn't make statements about things when you don't know anything
about them.  I think there's a proverb about that...

XP has a well specified method of handling requirements, and testing is
the backbone of how XP works.  Documentation is not considered as part
of the XP process, you can do documentation however you like.

With that said, I've been involved in one XP project (in Java, not Ada,
although the language shouldn't really matter).  It didn't turn out
well, but there were some bad personality conflicts, so it's hard to say
if any design process could have succeeded.  The theory is intriguing,
since it more or less just goes with reality and doesn't assume that you
can do things you really can't do, but it has yet to be proven out.