|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
| | #REDIRECT [[Scientific Procedure And Extreme Programming]] |
| | |
| ====Scientific Procedure And [[ExtremeProgramming]] : similarities discussion
| |
| ====
| |
| | |
| Am I the only person that has noticed the similarities in Scientific Principal and [[ExtremeProgramming]] (and other [[AgileDevelopmentMethods]], I suppose).
| |
| | |
| -Step 1: Get something that works on the small scale.
| |
| -Step 2: Refactor to Once and Only Once, if needed.
| |
| -Step 3: Test each step, to make sure it continues to model the behavior expected with your test range.
| |
| -Step 4: Elaborate it, repeating steps 1-4, until it fills your large scale needs.
| |
| | |
| Ok, the [[OaOO]] is mine, but it does seem to be what some in Science are after, to keep the complexity down, and as practice for a [[ToE]] (Theory of Everything).
| |
| | |
| Anyways... I'm wondering... did the XP guys have to rediscover that on their own, or did they benefit from a few centuries of human effort focused on understanding and furthering intellectual concepts into the real world? :-D
| |
| | |
| My other question: If Scientific Procedure is so slow now... how long will it be before [[ExtremeProgramming]] goes from a [[Rapid Development Methodology]] to a [[Glacial Development Methodology]]? After all, the original Scientific Proceedure generated results quickly. ;-)
| |
| | |
| ---StarPilot
| |
| | |
