|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Wird oft zusammen gekauft
Produktinformation
Möchten Sie die Produktinformationen aktualisieren oder Feedback zu den Produktabbildungen geben?
Ist der Verkauf dieses Produkts für Sie nicht akzeptabel? |
Mehr über den Autor
› Besuchen Sie die Seite von Watts S. Humphrey auf Amazon
Produktbeschreibungen
Kurzbeschreibung
Synopsis
Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?
Tags(Was ist das?)Bei einem Tag handelt es sich um ein Schlagwort, das zum Produkt passt.
Tags erleichtern allen Kunden die Suche und die Sortierung ihrer Lieblingsprodukte. |
Kundenrezensionen
For the working programmer, especially in today's visual integrated environment, applying alot of the material is hard. The Lines of Code (LOC) measurement used is not considered the best judge of program complexity, plus in a visual environment where one can spend days laying out forms or reports that generate no lines of code can skew numbers. I understand its use: It is easy to explain and calculate for beginners, but is lacking for working programmers.
There is also an emphasis on distinct phases of program development, particularly the compile and test phase. For those of us who work in a visual environment (be it C, Pascal, or Basic) the phases blur together and tracking time spent on compile is negligable. Also not mentioned is should intentional syntax errors (such as going to copy a variable name) that automatic syntax checking catches be tracked?
The extreme academic bend of the book also begins to annoy after awhile. The use of "small programs" to work with on the job is rare. Tracking number of lines changed can be tough in large programs, even with source code controls in place. The base code review checklist is extremely simple (intentionally) and aimed at C or Ada programmers, leaving other languages hanging.
One last annoyance: Many of the forms talked about are not available to print or use in a spreadsheet. The one form most working programmers would use, the time log, is the most glaring example.
If you meet either of the requirements in the first paragraph, read the book. You will find something of use. Just about anyone in the field would benefit from chapters 3 and 7 (in particular) since we all tend to have problems estimating how much time things will take.
Lastly, most of the data used to show how things improved after using the Personal Software Process was from 2 groups, one "real world" company and a group of students. Both groups only had around 15 people. Even combining both groups a sample of 30 programmers is not overwelming evidence. A larger sample is needed.
Although only 3 years old, to me the book needs to be updated. Larger samples for the improvement examples, handling non-code artificts such as forms and program documentation, and making sure that all of the forms are available on standard size paper (8.5x11 or A4) would be a good starting place.
I can not agree with every idea he presents, partly because he is not practically enough in the way he explains it. I read the book and nod my head and say to myself to try it out, but in practice it just doesn't work. I do not need a plan for the 100 lines programms he uses as examples and I just don't see a way for it to work on large projects. Proper tool support might help here.
He states studies (with 4 to 40 persons involved) which are clearly not representive and somtimes even contradict what he claims they prove.
So, the book is a very good starting point, but would need another book to really make it work.
Kunden diskutieren
|
Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen Aktive Diskussionen in ähnlichen Foren
Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
|
Ähnliche Foren
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieblingslisten
|
|
Ähnliche Artikel finden
Anhand des Sachgebietes nach ähnlichen Produkten suchen:
Ihr Kommentar
|
