In four words you managed to perfectly encapsulate the problem I have with so much writing about development processes and tools.
It's not good enough to claim to be just incrementally better than what you're probably doing, you need to be the best most super awesome EXTREME thing ever!
The 1-star reviews roughly fall in three categories:
- This is not how proper projects are done.
- We don't need another cult-like methodology
- This will vindicate cow boy coders
2 and 3 may have a point.This school has its agile proponents too, though. But compared to the common practices of the penultimate decade, XP and Agile at least acknowledged that failure was the default mode of software development projects, and made contingency plans for it.
...was in fact a strawman. The whole horrible waterfall process was an urban legend: http://postagilist.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/the-perennial-wa...
And on moonless nights I still wake up screaming remembering a RUP project I was involved in around 2000.
"No true scotsman" and all, I know.
The criticisms about no metrics supporting the book assertions are valid too (we have more metrics now, though).
That said, a lot of things in this book are now considered good engineering practices, and the methodology guys have come back with a vengeance with the Agile/Scrum/Lean/Whatever waves that filled the blanks left by XP (and ensured a nice revenue stream for pure process consultants).
> um 6:00 am 05.12. (at 6:00 on 12/05/..)
If i read it correctly, the time regex would extract "6:00 am" as time, but the "am" is wrong (German uses 24h format).
Simple regular expressions can be good enough if you're aware of the domain restriction though.
generally, very good.
I don't think it's fair to say "there are" when "there IS" only a single company that pays this kind of money in Paris.