gerold, >> When questioned, it was clear that going straight to coding, and >> using the coding and execution cycle to feedback into the design >> from the start, were the norm in their working habits. This is an >> example of what I call the 'extreme extreme programming' >> outlook naturally adopted by some software authors. >this very, very common practice is the reason why we are >not a software development but a software repair industry.
Yes, it is common practice. But I don't think it is necessarily poor practice. In a working environment it is often better to have something that does a job with bugs, than nothing at all. I suspect that Richard's subjects were keen to produce something to show for the three hours of their time. The problem with the software industry is that a lot of software that was intended for temporary use ends up lasting for years. One example is the software I wrote to generate the C usage measurements for my book. This growed and growed to 4,500 lines, and then got released as open source to prolong its life :-) >the problem was identified decades ago for example by dijkstra: >http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd03xx/EWD340.PDF While Dijkstra's papers often acknowledge and take account of the practical aspects of software development he is often quoted by idealists as the posterchild of their cause. derek -- Derek M Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667 Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Applications Standards Conformance Testing http://www.knosof.co.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PPIG Discuss List ([email protected]) Discuss admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss Announce admin: http://limitlessmail.net/mailman/listinfo/announce PPIG Discuss archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/
