home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: access4.digex.net!not-for-mail
- From: ell@access4.digex.net (Ell)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.object,comp.software-eng
- Subject: Re: Beware of "C" Hackers -- A rebuttal to Bertrand Meyer
- Followup-To: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.object,comp.software-eng
- Date: 22 Mar 1996 19:52:34 GMT
- Organization: The Universe
- Message-ID: <4iv0e2$7it@news4.digex.net>
- References: <1995Jul3.034108.4193@rcmcon.com> <3taaha$p8j@ixnews3.ix.netcom.co <64ss5$3F3RB@herold.franken.de> <4ijmup$dvl@henry.netaxis.com> <4ikh9k$mtr@gisdev.genasys.com.au> <31534574.309A@zoot.tau.ac.il>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: access4.digex.net
- X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
-
- Vincken (tolyn@zoot.tau.ac.il) wrote:
- : > 1. Gather user input
- : > 2. Show user specification, as you have understood it.
- : > 3. Refine specification according to user feedback
- : > 4. Once the spec. is satisfactory, code it.
- : > For me, step 3 is the Achilles heel. Despite my best efforts to ...
-
- In my understanding, the UM approach is to get a basic understanding of
- the key and a few secondary use cases before setting an architecture and
- then coding. It recommends against trying to understand all use cases and
- doing lots of refinement of the primary and some secondary use cases,
- beyond a basic understanding, before setting architecture and starting
- coding. Further iteration and incrementation, with user feedback, should
- be relied upon to get a better understanding of the use cases, and to
- improve architecture and everything else involved.
-
- Elliott
-