Xp Comments Faq

From XpFaq.

Whadaya mean you don't use comments, or even re-UML your code once per iteration???

From: <acockburn@aol.com>

> Alistair:

> > "reduce the project paperwork to nearly nothing."

"Can reduce the overhead ..."

> Phlip:

> > "reduce the project paperwork overhead to nearly nothing"

> Randall R Schulz

> > > Pardon me for not doing my homework, but if "paperwork" is reduced to "nearly nothing," what documents the results of this whirlwind process?

Anything. Just do it.

> Phlip:

> > That's why I added the word "overhead" - if XP advertized "zero paperwork" we'd get in trouble. XP either generates documentation for free, as part of otherwise required practices (like the stack of finished user story cards), or it makes any extra documentation efforts a schedulable UserStory. The catch is it removes paperwork from the design/code feedback loop.

Point One: Expect to start any "draw pictures of the code" phase by just looking at the existing artifacts; loci of changes in the code, etc. Point Two: The catch is XP removes paperwork from the design/code feedback loop. Just do it.

> Sorry, Phlip, I really get bent out of shape by people pussyfooting with words and then playing word lawyer about the words they chose.

I didn't. Please locate such a word so I can amend the records.

> XP reduces the project paperwork to nearly nothing. I stand by that > assertion.

Replace with "XP can reduce", tap the test button...

Assertions pass!

> The unit tests are not paperwork, the test run log is not paperwork, and I > think it is not right to try to wimp out of a reasonable question by saying > "Take advantage of the test run log."

XP makes good documentation easier because it keeps paperwork out of the class structure upgrade path. If you feel like changing code, it versions that moment. You don't have to fill out a form, no matter how floral, before just fixing something, anywhere.

This frees unimaginable time for the enabled to view that code in situ and report on its current state, in correct graphs and such. I would love to just do that for a month.

If you feel like writing a library of books about a single project for many years for no apparent reason, XP sees no reason to try to stop you.

> The story cards are paperwork.

> The iteration plan on the whiteboard or flipcharts is paperwork.

> That's all the paperwork there is.

> That is "project paperwork reduced to nearly nothing."

> I'll take corrections to my assertion, but not weaselworded circumlocutions.

And all are written in a local English. You can read them. After the fact, they appear to you like notes taken about the endeavor as it happened: All one big forensic log. If you thought you had to...

''And the answer to Randall's question is: The running code, the unit tests, the functional tests, and the story cards document the result...''

Yep. They are all readable. I didn't point that out because it's going in the FAQ real soon.


CategoryFaq CategoryExtremeProgramming

EditText of this page (last edited June 19, 2002) or FindPage with title or text search