Yup, some of the people in this discussion are aware of and to various
degrees buy into XP. However, the assumptions of XP are pretty stretched
by the realities. I think Eric S Raymonds "The cathedral and the bazaar"
and related papers are more relevant.

Daniel

Anthony Adachi <adachipro at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> >  What concerns me, and motivated me to start pushing
> in certain
> >  directions, is that Squeak's direction had ignored
> some "economic
> >  principles" of software development, and as a
> result, really was dying. 
> 
> It sounds like to me that it would help Squeak
> considerably if it was developed the Extreme
> Programming way (especially the core system). i.e.-
> Face to Face communication, Pair programming, Test
> First Development, on site customer (person(s) acting
> in the capacity of) , ect..
> 
> http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules.html
> http://www.extremeprogramming.org/map/project.html
> http://xprogramming.com/Practices/xpractices.htm
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ExtremeProgrammingRoadmap
> 
> Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> >  PS: if we could get money for two persons full time
> improving Squeak 
> >  this would solve a lot of problems.
> 
> Yes, at least two full time programmers. Or two
> part-time programmers who can arrange to work at the
> same time in the same place.  So they can, at a
> minimum, practice pair programming.
> 
> http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/pair.html
> http://xprogramming.com/Practices/PracPairs.html
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PairProgramming
> 
> >I'm really wondering how we could make this happens.
> 
> Squeak has had a significant involvement in Education,
> has it not? Isn't there grants (government, corporate,
> or private) which can be applied/lobbied for Squeak? 
> 
> The Refactoring Browser was developed at a University
> under the guidance of a  professor was it not? Could
> something similar be done with Squeak?
> 
> Failing that, Squeak developers who are geographically
> located near each other could pair on a voluntary
> basis.
> 
> In the event, were it's not possible to be in the same
> room during the development process, ways to
> effectively communicate still need to be found.
> 
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?InterTeamCommunication
> 
> >  If you tolerate this (cruft) then your children
> will be next
> >  Even now, the image, from a software engineering
> perspective, is a mess.
> >  Object (The Base Object) indirectly depends on well
> over half the
> >  classes in the system. 
> 
> Dedication to Test Driven Development would help
> considerably to resolve and avoid this situation. 
> 
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TestDrivenDevelopment
> 
> Moreover, XP puts a very strong emphasis on
> communication, especially face to face communication.
> A core group of people who are able to meet, plan, and
> program in the same room using XP would go a long way
> to resolving this cruft.
> 
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WholeTeam
> 
> Diego Gomez Deck wrote:
> >  we have pages and pages describing a process (the
> harvesting process) that
> >  don't work.  The bureaucracy is killing us.  The
> steps to get a fix
> >  approved are, in most of the cases, more difficult
> and time consumer than
> >  the fix itself.  We have lists of people with roles
> (guides, harvesters,
> >  etc) but in the reality only a few of them are
> active and working.
> >  These are pressures we simply have to respond to in
> order to keep Squeak
> >  alive and changing. This is what interests me.
> 
> Someone or some persons playing the role of the on
> site "customer" could make it easier to resolve the
> decision turn around time issues.
> 
> http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/customer.html
> 
> XP's practices were created in order to enable agility
> and change. i.e.- "Embrace Change".
> 
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AreYouDoingXp
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ExtremeValues
> 
> Just a thought,
> 
> Anthony
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com