[Squeakfoundation]An architecture for sustainable Squeaking

Joseph Pelrine squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Sun, 03 Jun 2001 11:12:36 +0200

At 22:38 02.06.2001 , danielv@netvision.net.il wrote:
> > > > More recent work can be found in Gamma et al.'s Paper on=
> > > > presented at XP 2000 (I'm not sure whether there's a web link to=
> > >I think this is it -
> > >http://www.xp2001.org/papers/Chapter9-Lippert+alii.pdf
> > Definitely not that paper! I don't know what those guys think they're
> > doing, but it ain't XP.
>Why not?

I don't want to go into too much detail about it publicly. Essentially,=20
they're the first of a hoard of carpetbaggers, such as we've seen hit=20
Smalltalk in the early-mid 90's, and Java in the past years. They're just=20
using XP as a buzzword to sell some tool they've invented. Mind you' I=20
didn't hear their presentation, as I was on a panel happening at the same=20
time, but I read the papers, and asked two colleagues of mine, who were=20
there. Their comments:

"Two examples for very bad talks were given by the group around=20
Z=FCllighoven. Two guys gave two talks about how they extended their JWAM=20
approach do something that is very but not completely different from XP.=20
One of the guys started to draw a meaningless chart saying, this is the=20
cost curve for change over time as suggested by Kent. He then went on to=20
say that sometimes the cost curve was more like that, drawing another=20
meaningless line. He then drew some meaningless consequences from that=20
observation but wasn't able to explain when one or the other cost curve=20
apply, what the reason for this strange behavior was or anything at all, in=

The other guy explained how they are not using the planning game and not=20
using proper iterations, and how they used a proprietary tool to not do=20
that. Both JWAN guys wasted a couple of minutes of their precious speaking=
time to introduce us to the exact same company they're woking for, and how=
they had called done six XP projects. From what they said, there was strong=
evidence they were not nearly doing anything like XP, however... "

> >However, they have a reference to Gamma et al.'s
> > paper in there.
>Yup, that (and being in XP200X) is what tricked me. My bad.

You'll find the paper in the proceedings of XP2K, greedily published by AWL=
"Extreme Programming Examined"

> > Huh? I use the RB all the time for my Squeak work. I even call it from
> > SUnit to wrap quality control tests in my work. Contact Bob Hartwig - he
> > did the port, and is doing the StSq version too.
>Last time I looked, the Squeak port wasn't fun(ctioning). I tried in the
>StSq prerelease, and extract method (the smoke test) doesn't work. First
>codePane wasn't set to the TextMorph, after fixing that manually. The
>refactoring itself asserted in a case that should have worked.
>You're saying this should work?

Sure. I remember hitting one bug once, but that's about it. The stuff that=
works works. That's what I like about the XP approach - cut back on scope,=
not quality. I always prefer to have limited functionality working=20
correctly than have lots of half-wired stuff.

The RB got shoehorned into the StSq "release" (if you can call it that).=20
Bob is going to do the cleanup and integration for it Real Soon Now (are=20
you out there listening, Bob?).
  - Joseph Pelrine [ | ]
Daedalos Consulting
Email:  jpelrine@acm.org
Web:    www.daedalos.com/~j_pelrine

Smalltalk - scene and not herd!