Simple Agile
Continuing the previous exchange in the form of a Socratic dialogue
Why are you talking about Karate and JKD?
The ability to draw analogies sets sentient beings apart. I was using Karate and JKD (if it exists) as similar creative and technical analogies for software engineering. Life in general. Primary school; secondary school; tertiary education; post-education independence is another which fits this context. Fundamentals followed by application, plus understanding, then extension.
I conclude that you now completely agree with my points, which is very fine since I believe I have spoken absolutely sensibly. Please confirm this.
You indeed have spoken sensibly. I neither expect to agree with all of your points, nor you with mine. Nor could it be so if we are thinking and developing independently without following a common dogma.
We agree with Fowler and Kent's opinions as I have quoted them. We both agree that a simple agile approach to software engineering is the most likely approach.
Not clear to the first assertion. We certainly disagree on interpretation of Fowler's words, among others. The "simple agile approach" needs a little more elaboration and definition if you want to pick-and-choose parts rather than specify to which agile approach (eg. scrum, xp) you are referring.
We both agree that a very disciplined approach is necessary, and that this discipline need only be applied to a very few rules.
Again, we disagree on intent and degree. How much discipline is too much or too little?
Pay attention to the current circumstances, decide your next small step using the information to hand, always trying to improve things.
Here we agree. I think. Perhaps we have different definitions of small step. For me, three days is a small step compared to an iteration or closure over three or four weeks.
We agree that if something appears difficult, hard, convoluted, and complex it is not well understood. We agree that if something is simple it is understandable and communicable (even when encapsulating a great deal of complexity).
Here we are in agreement. No qualification.
Why are you talking about Karate and JKD?
The ability to draw analogies sets sentient beings apart. I was using Karate and JKD (if it exists) as similar creative and technical analogies for software engineering. Life in general. Primary school; secondary school; tertiary education; post-education independence is another which fits this context. Fundamentals followed by application, plus understanding, then extension.
I conclude that you now completely agree with my points, which is very fine since I believe I have spoken absolutely sensibly. Please confirm this.
You indeed have spoken sensibly. I neither expect to agree with all of your points, nor you with mine. Nor could it be so if we are thinking and developing independently without following a common dogma.
We agree with Fowler and Kent's opinions as I have quoted them. We both agree that a simple agile approach to software engineering is the most likely approach.
Not clear to the first assertion. We certainly disagree on interpretation of Fowler's words, among others. The "simple agile approach" needs a little more elaboration and definition if you want to pick-and-choose parts rather than specify to which agile approach (eg. scrum, xp) you are referring.
We both agree that a very disciplined approach is necessary, and that this discipline need only be applied to a very few rules.
Again, we disagree on intent and degree. How much discipline is too much or too little?
Pay attention to the current circumstances, decide your next small step using the information to hand, always trying to improve things.
Here we agree. I think. Perhaps we have different definitions of small step. For me, three days is a small step compared to an iteration or closure over three or four weeks.
We agree that if something appears difficult, hard, convoluted, and complex it is not well understood. We agree that if something is simple it is understandable and communicable (even when encapsulating a great deal of complexity).
Here we are in agreement. No qualification.
posted by Daniel Berinson at 9:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home