Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Martin Fowler has taken a look [martinfowler.com] and doesn't like what he sees...

    -Dom

    • 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

      • 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.

        • 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 tha