Re: Timeless Classics of Software Engineering

"Andy Glew" <glew2public-news_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:YJhOc.2049$fJ7.698_at_newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
>
> I doubt that the XP (eXtreme Programming) books will
> become classics, even though I enjoy them.
>

I wonder whether this is likely to be the case.

In spite of the rebellion against what has been called "Talylorism" by some in the XP community, and notwithstanding McBreen's keen insight into what has passed for software engineering in the past, XP might simply be another aspect of software engineering.

Engineering is not a rigid set of rules that restricts the engineer from seeking the most effective path to a successful outcome. Quite the contrary. A engineer is looking for the most economical choices leading to the most dependable outcome.

Too much of what has passed for software engineering has been characterized by perjoratives such as "document-driven design," "process over people," "the grand design approach," "ritual and ceremony," etc. As we approach any project, as engineers, we want to find the optimal path to success. For some projects, this might require a fair amount of "ceremony" and up-front design. For others, a model more analogous to the Unified Process could be appropriate. And, for still others, Agile Development is the better option. Sometimes, we might choose some combination of those choices.

XP does make a contribution to software engineering thought, and an important contribution at that. Many of the ideas in XP have been around for a long time and used, however informally, in the creation of successful software products. I can recall a rule in a programming shop where I worked in the mid-1970's that was a lot like "pair programming."

An good engineer will not be so dogmatic as to reject an approach to success that actually works. There seem to be such successes in the record for XP. Therefore, in the XP literature, there just might be such classics waiting to be discovered and/or identified. Even so, classics tend to be identified as such only after a respectable period of time has passed, so it would be premature to call them classics at this point.

Richard Riehle Received on Sun Aug 08 2004 - 21:24:40 CEST