--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Russell Gold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> A recent comment from one of the more vocal members:
>
> > I don't think you get the performance/modularity/decrease in config
that we
> > need by incrementally changing something. Refactoring without a clear
> > architectural goal is just polishing a turd.
>
> > Remember, GIGO - polished, naturally.
>
> > You seem to be saying that as we incrementally refactor, the
architecture
> > will appear from the process. I don't believe this is the case (never
> > witnessed such an event, nor heard of one).
>
> Any thoughts on how I go about making the case here? Or am I simply
> wrong in assuming that we can refactor to a good architecture without
> extensive documentation and review?
Try to turn this kind of argument on it's head:
- The more valuable of two otherwise equal systems is the more
changeable/malleable one.
- The /only/ way to /prove/ that your system is easily changeable is by
creating it through continuous change.
- It's not probable that an architecture which cannot be reached by
incrementally changing the system can be improved upon by incrementally
changing the system. That makes it a quite risky kind of architecture.
- Sometimes the risk of getting stuck in a local optimum is brought up,
but "incrementally changing the system" doesn't imply that all steps
have to be very small. You just don't want to do /everything/ in one
step. That's why we choose the smallest /possible/ steps which
continuously increase business value.
If someone claims that it's not possible to refactor to a better
architecture, then he seems to say either of the following:
- It's not possible to create real software (software as a easily
changeable /result/, not as a working material).
- /He/ cannot create real software.
- The best architectures will be the most risky ones.
If he refers to a specific existing system he might even be right -
there is a lot of fake/bad software around. Remember the statistics
about the difficulty of changing complex IT systems ? They seem to be
computing the dismal ratio of real to fake/bad software.
One more recommendation:
There is no need to /look/ foolish by claiming "the right architecture
will just magically appear". Let people observe that afterwards.
As long as they manage to increase the value of the system with each
iteration it doesn't matter whether they believe they are aiming for a
specific architecture.
Just my 2 cents.
Good luck.
J�rgen
--------
J�rgen Ahting - AMECO GmbH
If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find
something in them to hang him. -- Cardinal Richelieu
To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
