XP (was Re: Defending the Python lanuage... )

[Thomas R. Corbin]

Chris Gonnerman wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Laura Creighton" <lac at strakt.com>
>> 
>> Don't formalise the process too much.  You are not trying to bring
>> order to your establishment by building rules that work top-down.
>> You are trying to foster order that works from the bottom up.
> 
> Here is the ideal of XP which I think is being lost on managers
> trying to implement it for buzzword compliance.  They don't really
> understand what they are doing, so they will *mandate* all parts
> of XP even if they are incompatible with the people doing the work.
> 
> XP is only going to work if you adapt it together with your people.
> Each side may have to give; if the programmers you are working with
> are hardheaded (and which of us aren't), forcing them to pair-program
> or do other XP things is *not* going to improve anything.

        No - but if you are going to adopt XP, you might as well go all the 
way.  The XP folks say that just adopting part of XP just isn't as 
efficacious as doing the whole thing because each piece supports the other 
pieces.   Leaving out one pieces is leaving out one wall of a house, it's
sure to fall down.

        Of course, they also say, "season to taste".


> 
> I've lived through too many "paradigm shifts" already.  I remember
> the fiasco of TQM being applied to a scientific laboratory, where
> commitment to quality was already so high that the technicians were
> insulted.  Managers blindly applying buzzwords like Band-Aids makes
> me curse... whether it's TQM, or Java, or XP, *no* "new way" will
> work for everyone.
> 
> It's just not a one-size-fits-all world.