use Perl

• Doesn't look good (Score:2)

  by Dom2 (2981)

  Martin Fowler has taken a look [martinfowler.com] and doesn't like what he sees...

  -Dom
  • Re:Doesn't look good (Score:2)

    by gnat (29)

    Well duh. That's like Dave Rolsky taking a look at "101 Ways to Torture Bunny Rabbits" and not liking what he sees. Fowler's an XP low-process guy. The SWEBOK is all about process.

    --Nat
    • Re:Doesn't look good (Score:2)

      by ziggy (25)

      Well, that's an unfair dismissal of Fowler's dislike of SWEBOK.

      If you read his commentary (it's very brief), he dislikes the SWEBOK because the field is both too young and too broad to have a formed a generally accepted view of "what works". Plus, it's definition of the "body of knowledge" is needlessly shallow, and excludes things like the Gang of Four.
      • Re:Doesn't look good (Score:2)

        by gnat (29) on 2003.06.30 16:53 (#21601) Journal

        the field is both too young and too broad to have a formed a generally accepted view of "what works"

        That's nonsense. People have been studying software engineering since the 70s. I agree completely that the idea that there's anything that works in software engineering other than luck is optimistic, but the disciplines that SWEBOK describes (requirements, testing, SCM, etc.) are valid and mature.

        The big problem, I think, is that SWEBOK manages to be tedious and pointlessly theoretical about topics that must be, at their heart, practical or else useless.

        Then again, I work for O'Reilly and program in Perl, so "practical" may be more of a religion for me than other people :-)

        --Nat

        Reply to This

        Parent