Re: Work to the risk was Re: Inspections Was: RE: [AM] ANN: Mashing Deadly Myt

Scott E. Preece wrote:

> | From: Scott Ambler<[email protected]>
> | 
> | It's the same thing with software.  If I was working on truly critical 
> | software where a mistake is costly, perhaps the control software for the 
> | Mars Lander or control software for a medical device, then I'd very likely 
> | insist on reviews and inspections.  In these situations the risk far 
> | outweighs the cost.  In the vast majority of situations this isn't the 
> | case, and frankly it makes very little sense to do inspections and reviews 
> | when other practices such as pair programming, modeling with others, 
> | collective ownership, ... seem to result in very high quality work anyway.
> ---
> 
> If you're willing to limit your scope to projects where it doesn't
> matter if you deliver defects, then I can agree with you.  

This is insulting. It ignores Scott A's argument entirely.

 > My perceptions are
> colored by working with software delivered to customers, with both real
> costs and credibility costs to escaped defects.

This is equally insulting. I'm not sure that this furthers your 
argument. No need to puff out your chest at us.
-- 
J. B. Rainsberger,
Diaspar Software Services
http://www.diasparsoftware.com :: +1 416 791-8603
Let's write software that people understand

For more information about AM, visit the Agile Modeling Home Page at www.agilemodeling.com
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: [email protected]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrKDA.bWnbtk.Z2NtYS1h
Or send an email to: [email protected]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------