On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 03:22:38PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:41:58PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > > You've hit the fundamental problem with XP. Getting anything done
> > > requires two programmers to agree on something; this, as everyone
> > > knows, is impossible.
From: Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 3:52 PM
> At 03:22 PM 2001.05.16 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >That's not argument, it's just contradiction!
>
> Ahh, you must be looking for a different forum then.
>
> Try Castro's site. ;)
"Sorry, this is 'senseless abuse
Robert Shiels wrote:
> > Leon
> >
> > ... 640K ought to be enough for anybody
> >
> ...is that dollars or pounds...
Turkish lire?
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[snip]
> Leon
> --
> Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
> Iterative Software...http://www.iterative-software.com/
>
> ... 640K ought to be enough for anybody
>
...is that dollars or pounds...
/Robert
Simon Cozens sent the following bits through the ether:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:41:58PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > No it isn't!
>
> That's not argument, it's just contradiction!
Arguments are down the hall.
Leon
--
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
Iterat
At 03:22 PM 2001.05.16 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>That's not argument, it's just contradiction!
Ahh, you must be looking for a different forum then.
Try Castro's site. ;)
--
Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 04:31:18PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > That's not argument, it's just contradiction!
> I'm sorry; I'm not allowed to argue with you unless you've paid.
Ah, you going into consulting as well, eh?
--
"The elder gods went to Suggoth and all
Simon Cozens wrote:
> That's not argument, it's just contradiction!
I'm sorry; I'm not allowed to argue with you unless you've paid.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
* at 16/05 15:22 +0100 Simon Cozens said:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:41:58PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > > You've hit the fundamental problem with XP. Getting anything done
> > > requires two programmers to agree on something; this, as everyone
> > > knows, is impossible.
> >
> > No it isn't
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:41:58PM +0100, James Powell wrote:
> > You've hit the fundamental problem with XP. Getting anything done
> > requires two programmers to agree on something; this, as everyone
> > knows, is impossible.
>
> No it isn't!
That's not argument, it's just contradiction!
--
On Wed, 16 May 2001, James Powell wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:27:19PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > You've hit the fundamental problem with XP. Getting anything done requires
> > two programmers to agree on something; this, as everyone knows, is impossible.
>
> No it isn't!
You're
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:27:19PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:08:40PM +0100, Robert Thompson wrote:
> > Having two people look at/develop a piece of code is better than one.
> > Therefore having three people must be even better.
> > But why stop there - why not four, f
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:08:40PM +0100, Robert Thompson wrote:
> Having two people look at/develop a piece of code is better than one.
> Therefore having three people must be even better.
> But why stop there - why not four, five, six . . .
> Better yet - design/develop by committee!
You've hit
From: "Matthew Byng-Maddick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Barbie wrote:
> > sysadmin, being the shortsighted Solaris guru that he claims he is, has
> > deemed outgoing and ingoing ports that aren't for HTTP, FTP be blocked
:(
>
> dare I enquire how you sent this mail, then?
>
> :)
> From: Robin Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Do you think it's possible to take XP too far?
> *Too* extreme?
>
Sure it is.
Having two people look at/develop a piece of code is better than one.
Therefore having three people must be even better.
But why stop there - why not four, five
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Barbie wrote:
> sysadmin, being the shortsighted Solaris guru that he claims he is, has
> deemed outgoing and ingoing ports that aren't for HTTP, FTP be blocked :(
dare I enquire how you sent this mail, then?
:)
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44
From: "Robin Houston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Thanks, babelfish.
try www.freetranslation.com. Unfortunately I can't try it from here as our
sysadmin, being the shortsighted Solaris guru that he claims he is, has
deemed outgoing and ingoing ports that aren't for HTTP, FTP be blocked :(
Barbie.
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:37:25PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> "Felix: How extreme! But good..."
>
> Extreme indeed... but it *does* satisfy the test cases they've written so
> far, and it contains no unnecessary flexibility ;)
Do you think it's possible to take XP too far?
*Too* extreme?
.r
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:37:25PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> > Well it isn't English, but it's *almost* comprehensible...
> Sounds a bit like dadadodo, only it makes more sense :)
Which does? :)
--
"Irrigation of the land with seawater desalinated by fusion power is ancient.
It's called 'ra
On or about Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:26:07PM +0100, Robin Houston typed:
> One XP day passes fast, since you programmed all day long long
> exerted with your colleagues. That means it not that you look your
> partner with the work over the shoulder. In the opposite. To be in the
> pair to program
Robin Houston wrote:
> Well it isn't English, but it's *almost* comprehensible...
Sounds a bit like dadadodo, only it makes more sense :)
I like the section "Keep the design as simple as possible":
"The design strategy implies starting with a simple design and continually
improving it. In fact,
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 12:41:18PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> (or trust Babelfish),
One XP day passes fast, since you programmed all day long long
exerted with your colleagues. That means it not that you look your
partner with the work over the shoulder. In the opposite. To be in the
pair
22 matches
Mail list logo
