Modern Development Methodology?

[Ally]

Could someone give me an example of a modern development methodology? Just
to see if I'm thinking along the right lines...

P.S. Sorry for the cross posting but I couldn't find a newsgroup for systems
analysis.

[Phlip]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?

Ally wrote:
[color=blue]
> Could someone give me an example of a modern development methodology? Just
> to see if I'm thinking along the right lines...[/color]

Google "Test Driven Development".
[color=blue]
> P.S. Sorry for the cross posting but I couldn't find a newsgroup for[/color]
systems[color=blue]
> analysis.[/color]

news:comp.softw are-eng

Briefly put, write a test for everything, at every scale, and run all tests
after the fewest possible edits. That technique rapidly creates rock-solid
code that resists the kinds of bugs that require long arduous bug hunts.
When code is easy and safe to change, you can split requirements into small
features, implement these in order of business value, and release weekly.
That strategy captures every aspect of development as a kind of test, with
results that provide visibility for steering. Each week, you test that your
project is more useful.

--
Phlip

http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand

[Daniel Dyer]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:24:21 +0100, Ally <ally@hotmail.c om> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Could someone give me an example of a modern development methodology?
> Just
> to see if I'm thinking along the right lines...
>
> P.S. Sorry for the cross posting but I couldn't find a newsgroup for
> systems
> analysis.[/color]

Agile methodologies such as eXtreme Programming
(http://www.extremeprogramming.org/) are 'modern' and quite popular these
days. But there isn't a one-size-fits-all methodology that is appropriate
to all development. What are you building?

This (http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html) is an
interesting article about a methodology for software development that
gives a completely different perspective and makes an interesting point
about bugs in the software vs. bugs in the process.

Dan.


--
Daniel Dyer

http://www.footballpredictions.net

[Phlip]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?

Daniel Dyer wrote;
[color=blue]
> Agile methodologies such as eXtreme Programming
> (http://www.extremeprogramming.org/) are 'modern' and quite popular these
> days. But there isn't a one-size-fits-all methodology that is appropriate
> to all development.[/color]

Sometimes there is. (The standard example is "wash your hands _before_
performing surgery.")

If we dismiss "extreme" as an appeal to developers' sense of mishchief, and
"Agile" as marketecture, we are left with "Test".

Thou shalt automate thy tests.

--
Phlip

http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand

[Stan Milam]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?

Daniel Dyer wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:24:21 +0100, Ally <ally@hotmail.c om> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Could someone give me an example of a modern development methodology?
>> Just
>> to see if I'm thinking along the right lines...
>>
>> P.S. Sorry for the cross posting but I couldn't find a newsgroup for
>> systems
>> analysis.[/color]
>
>
> Agile methodologies such as eXtreme Programming
> (http://www.extremeprogramming.org/) are 'modern' and quite popular
> these days. But there isn't a one-size-fits-all methodology that is
> appropriate to all development. What are you building?
>
> This (http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html) is an
> interesting article about a methodology for software development that
> gives a completely different perspective and makes an interesting point
> about bugs in the software vs. bugs in the process.
>
> Dan.
>
>[/color]

Dan, this looks to be good stuff. There is definately a relationship
between the software development process and bugs in the system. I
remember my first big project was as a junior programmer. The senior
programmer and architech really new his stuff. It was a lot of work buf
fun. The next big project I was working for a couple of guys who could
not program or design their way out of a paper bag. This was a lot of
work and miserable. Daily I found big flaws in their design. They
would say "good catch" then leave it up to me to find some way to fix
it. Basically, I got paid a lesser salary to find their mistakes and
fix them. In these latter days of my career I see the problems coming
down the road, but I am too tired of being beat up for trying to make
everyone aware. Now I quietly program solutions and when reality
strikes I pull my solution like a rabbit out of a hat.

Regards,
Stan Milam.

[Pavel]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?

We use PSP (Personal Software Process). It's the most difficult process
but it really works.

[Daniel Dyer]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:05:06 +0100, Phlip <phlip_cpp@yaho o.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Daniel Dyer wrote;
>[color=green]
>> Agile methodologies such as eXtreme Programming
>> (http://www.extremeprogramming.org/) are 'modern' and quite popular
>> these
>> days. But there isn't a one-size-fits-all methodology that is
>> appropriate
>> to all development.[/color]
>
> Sometimes there is. (The standard example is "wash your hands _before_
> performing surgery.")
>
> If we dismiss "extreme" as an appeal to developers' sense of mishchief,
> and
> "Agile" as marketecture, we are left with "Test".
>
> Thou shalt automate thy tests.[/color]

I'm not going to disagree about testing, but I would argue that that is
only one aspect of a methodology and stand by my point about no one
methodology being appropriate for all software. For example there is
unlikely to be a methodology that is equally suited to developing
MP3-playing sofware and space shuttle software. A bug in your MP3 player
might affect the sound quality or cause it to crash occasionally. A bug
in the shuttle software could cause several people to die in a very
expensive explosion. For the MP3 player you might sacrifice a bit of
quality in favour of ease of development and keeping costs low. For the
shuttle, expense is secondary to quality.


Dan.


--
Daniel Dyer

http://www.footballpredictions.net

[Betty]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?


"Phlip" <phlip_cpp@yaho o.com> wrote in message
news:8XPae.36$a J.17@newssvr31. news.prodigy.co m...[color=blue]
> Ally wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Could someone give me an example of a modern development methodology?[/color][/color]
Just[color=blue][color=green]
> > to see if I'm thinking along the right lines...[/color]
>
> Google "Test Driven Development".
>[color=green]
> > P.S. Sorry for the cross posting but I couldn't find a newsgroup for[/color]
> systems[color=green]
> > analysis.[/color]
>
> news:comp.softw are-eng
>
> Briefly put, write a test for everything, at every scale, and run all[/color]
tests[color=blue]
> after the fewest possible edits. That technique rapidly creates rock-solid
> code that resists the kinds of bugs that require long arduous bug hunts.
> When code is easy and safe to change, you can split requirements into[/color]
small[color=blue]
> features, implement these in order of business value, and release weekly.
> That strategy captures every aspect of development as a kind of test, with
> results that provide visibility for steering. Each week, you test that[/color]
your[color=blue]
> project is more useful.
>
> --
> Phlip
> http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand
>[/color]
Where is the part where you find out what the program is supposed to do?

[Phlip]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?

Betty wrote:
[color=blue]
> Where is the part where you find out what the program is supposed to do?[/color]

You review the features, as they grow, with Someone who has the full-time
job of researching what the program is supposed to do.

If you can't get that Someone, then, gosh, you might not have the charter
for a healthy project.

If that Someone tells you a feature is now finished, you don't argue.

And you never do too much before reviewing the feature, so you never need to
backtrack too far.

That Someone will request features in order of business value, so you can
deploy a release to real users as early as possible. This also helps prevent
rework.

Daniel Dyer wrote:
[color=blue]
> This (http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html) is an
> interesting article about a methodology for software development that
> gives a completely different perspective and makes an interesting point
> about bugs in the software vs. bugs in the process.[/color]

Then the article ends with this:

"The most important things the shuttle group does -- carefully planning the
software in advance, writing no code until the design is complete, making no
changes without supporting blueprints, keeping a completely accurate record
of the code -- are not expensive. The process isn't even rocket science. Its
standard practice in almost every engineering discipline except software
engineering."

Those things are important for all software development, but the author
misses some major points. Aerospace software has a long legacy of
incremental development. No such software has _ever_ been _completely_
planned in advance. The developers write lots of code _before_ carefully
planning the next design change.

Such development invests in infrastructure that makes the software as safe
as possible to change.

What's totally remarkable is these techniques (specifically, the test-first,
pair programming, and continuous integration) can scale _down_ from
aerospace software development, to the speed of ordinary business
development.

--
Phlip

http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand

[Richard Bos]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?

"Ally" <ally@hotmail.c om> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Could someone give me an example of a modern development methodology? Just
> to see if I'm thinking along the right lines...[/color]

No, but apparently, the nameless method which consists of planning
ahead, coding meticulously, and desk-checking and debugging thoroughly,
isn't modern enough any more.

Richard

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?

In comp.lang.c Richard Bos <rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
[color=blue]
> No, but apparently, the nameless method which consists of planning
> ahead, coding meticulously, and desk-checking and debugging thoroughly,
> isn't modern enough any more.[/color]

How old do you have to be to be a codger? :-)

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Richard Harter]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:25:50 GMT, rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
Bos) wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Ally" <ally@hotmail.c om> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Could someone give me an example of a modern development methodology? Just
>> to see if I'm thinking along the right lines...[/color]
>
>No, but apparently, the nameless method which consists of planning
>ahead, coding meticulously, and desk-checking and debugging thoroughly,
>isn't modern enough any more.[/color]

How utterly twenty centurieth. Get with the program, dude.


Richard Harter, cri@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Save the Earth now!!
It's the only planet with chocolate.

[Richard Bos]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?

Christopher Benson-Manica <ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
> In comp.lang.c Richard Bos <rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > No, but apparently, the nameless method which consists of planning
> > ahead, coding meticulously, and desk-checking and debugging thoroughly,
> > isn't modern enough any more.[/color]
>
> How old do you have to be to be a codger? :-)[/color]

34 <g>.

Richard, grumpy old bastard from birth

[Phlip]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?

Richard Bos wrote:
[color=blue]
> No, but apparently, the nameless method which consists of planning
> ahead, coding meticulously, and desk-checking and debugging thoroughly,
> isn't modern enough any more.[/color]

Uh, where's the automated tests?

--
Phlip

http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand

[Betty]

Re: Modern Development Methodology?


"Phlip" <phlip_cpp@yaho o.com> wrote in message
news:sIsbe.1190 $Ne7.920@newssv r17.news.prodig y.com...[color=blue]
> Richard Bos wrote:
>[color=green]
> > No, but apparently, the nameless method which consists of planning
> > ahead, coding meticulously, and desk-checking and debugging thoroughly,
> > isn't modern enough any more.[/color]
>
> Uh, where's the automated tests?
>[/color]
The customer does them when you dump the code in their lap ;-)