XP is a "movement" and like many such phenomena, there are multiple proponents with differing views. There may be a "start simple," integrate later part of the XP movement, but the part of XP I'm familiar with takes a different, almost opposite approach. They also advocate incremental development, with each piece being designed, coded and tested before going on to the next piece. The difference is that they don't start with the simpliest piece, but rather, with the "riskiest." What makes a piece risky is that it involves functionality for which either (1) the requirements are not well established or (2) the design and coding are particularly difficult. These are the pieces that are likely to take the longest to do, have the greatest impact on the rest of the system, and need the greatest number of interations to get right so starting with them first increases the chances of overall project success. One way to pin down a difficult part of the design is to start with something simple and see where it fails, so that viewed in the small, this kind of XP may look like "start simple," but when viewed at a larger scale, it is more like "do the complicated and tricky stuff first." I note that this kind of XP may be difficult to sell organizationally. The areas that are the greatest risk may be seen by outsiders as not very central to system functionality, so you may get questions like "why are you worried about save and restore when you haven't even built the circuit editor yet?" Ruven Brooks - Automatic footer for [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe discuss To join the announcements list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe announce To receive a help file, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] help This list is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/ If you have any problems or questions, please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
