Looking for interesting reading

Post #5,987 by ben_tilly 8/20/01 12:00:40 PM Reply	Looking for interesting reading Over on PerlMonks I have put out [link\|http://206.170.14.76/index.pl?node_id=106109\|a request] for interesting reading. It was inspired by a couple of articles I found here, and I am getting some interesting suggestions. So far the best is a collection of papers by [link\|http://members.aol.com/humansandt/papers/completelist.htm\|Alistair Cockburn]. I thought others here might be interested, or might have more to add to this list... Cheers, Ben
Post #5,999 by Fearless Freep 8/20/01 1:31:51 PM Reply	Disagreement From [link\|http://ventedspleen.weblogger.com/\|here] The dynamic organization that can change quickly is going to be more successful than a static organization that is set in its ways. I don't think that's true, but neither is it false. It has no meaning. I've seen dynamic companies that changed so fast to latest whims that they never quite got anything done and out the door because they were too busy reacting to the latest buzz that any long term product plans were obsoleted almost as fast as the products could be developed. A case where a little bit of static approach might help foster some follow through and completion. And I've seen software the same way; written so dynamically that it was a mess. It couldn't survive because it was too loose; not enough stability to build on. A lot of 'quicky prototypes' and up that way when you try to take them into full scale production Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #6,008 by tuberculosis 8/20/01 1:54:39 PM Reply	Fair point I see what you mean - I think I left out saying "In the face of changing market conditions" I'm pretty sure that IBM would have folded some time ago if they had stuck to just making the world's best typewriter. Your point regarding the need for structure is also well taken. You need some, but I think the software pundits have been arguing for excessive rigidity for a bit too long.
Post #6,011 by Fearless Freep 8/20/01 2:00:43 PM Reply	Re: Fair point Your point regarding the need for structure is also well taken. You need some, but I think the software pundits have been arguing for excessive rigidity for a bit too long. I agree there. I like dynamically typed languages. I just thought your illustration was...not well connected Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #6,067 by neelk 8/21/01 11:59:13 AM Reply	Some books _Patterns of Software_, by Richard Gabriel. If you thought that Mob Software was interesting but not fully thought out, you should read this book. Hell, even if you hated it you should read this book. rpg outlines what he learned in his decades in the business. And his experience is just plain better than most -- as a programmer, he was one of the genius Lisp hackers from Stanford, and as a manager, he founded and ran Lucid Inc. _Toward Zero-Defect Programming_, Allan M. Stavely. This is a very quick and informal introduction to Harlan Mills' Cleanroom methodology. Basically, Cleanroom takes the Floyd-Hoare proof rules and turns them into a lightweight development methodology. This is an amazing social engineering hack; it makes using formal specification and verification a lightweight and enjoyable process. If you ever plan on writing any code in C or Java you owe it to yourself to learn about Cleanroom.

Welcome to IWETHEY!