On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 11:11:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 3) XP pretty much requires that you use an OO language. If you're
> > using procedural perl or PHP, you're going to run into trouble.
>
> I don't follow that... there are certainly advantages of OO tools, but I
> don't see where that is a specific requirement of XP. The most important
> refactoring tool is a comprehensive suite of unit tests, in any event.
>
> OO languages are orthogonal to good design... they help, but are neither
> necessary nor sufficient.
Well, okay, I should have phrased that differently. XP does is heavily
dependent on OO design concepts, whether implemented in an OO language
or not. Taking advantage of that structure in procedural PHP or perl
is a skill most programmers don't have.
> > 4) XP totally falls apart unless you get complete buy-in from every
> > part of the team.
>
> True, but what process doesn't?
There are many processes that don't. With XP, your requirements are
your stories, and your documentation is your code. It's extremely
difficult, and possibly not worth the effort, to make an XP project
interoperate with external forces, because of the total lack of
visibility you have into the inner workings of the project unless
you're also doing XP.
--
- Adam
-----
Adam Fields, Managing Partner, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Surgam, Inc. is a technology consulting firm with strong background in
delivering scalable and robust enterprise web and IT applications.
http://www.adamfields.com
--
http://cms-list.org/
more signal, less noise.
