Christopher Smith wrote:
XP was the first process which got *programmers* to accept the need
for testing. It deserves a huge amount of praise for that.
Speak for yourself. Unit testing was a huge part of Smalltalk
development going back at least a decade more than that, not to mention
kind of well understood by folks with experience just about everywhere.
And how many Smalltalk projects were there vs. C/C++/Java?
Exactly. What the Smalltalk weenies were doing in 1995 was just as
irrelevant to the mainstream as Lisp weenies in 1985.
XP moved testing from a bunch of useless Smalltalk weenies to the vast
collective consciousness of the "unwashed" majority of programmers.
Well, the SCRUM guys claim that Beck basically stole their idea (which
he doesn't much deny either), and of course Agile is really just a
broader tent than XP, some would say the same about CMM. Waterfall I
have to take issue with though. I have seen improvements when a team
moves from waterfall to XP, SCRUM, CMM and RUP, and the discipline to do
it right came from how awful things were under waterfall. ;-)
The reason why I don't have quite the same distaste for "Waterfall" is
that I have seen Waterfall work. But, yes, it does require discipline.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
