<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reading code Vs searching code</title>
	<atom:link href="http://watchitlater.com/blog/2009/10/reading-code-vs-searching-code/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://watchitlater.com/blog/2009/10/reading-code-vs-searching-code/</link>
	<description>A reluctant foray into the world of blogging.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:01:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://watchitlater.com/blog/2009/10/reading-code-vs-searching-code/comment-page-1/#comment-5220</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:59:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://watchitlater.com/blog/?p=67#comment-5220</guid>
		<description>Hey Graham, I forgot about reckless debt, though I have been trying to attribute some of this behaviour to value fetishism (had to use that in a sentence). Some teams are now quite good at red-green-red-green software delivery, and can turn out code like a machine. However its supposed to be red-green-refactor (or at least red-green-reflect), but that seems to get lost in the rush to deliver &quot;value&quot;. Unfortunately that leaves teams accumulating tech debt that may not ever be addressed, or actually using tech debt as a passive-aggressive mechanism of not actually dealing with an issue that is &#039;too hard&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Graham, I forgot about reckless debt, though I have been trying to attribute some of this behaviour to value fetishism (had to use that in a sentence). Some teams are now quite good at red-green-red-green software delivery, and can turn out code like a machine. However its supposed to be red-green-refactor (or at least red-green-reflect), but that seems to get lost in the rush to deliver &#8220;value&#8221;. Unfortunately that leaves teams accumulating tech debt that may not ever be addressed, or actually using tech debt as a passive-aggressive mechanism of not actually dealing with an issue that is &#8216;too hard&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GrahamBrooks</title>
		<link>http://watchitlater.com/blog/2009/10/reading-code-vs-searching-code/comment-page-1/#comment-5214</link>
		<dc:creator>GrahamBrooks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:12:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://watchitlater.com/blog/?p=67#comment-5214</guid>
		<description>Mr T ;),

I see this effect as part of a general lack of zooming of perspective during development. Quite often teams are under pressure to deliver functionality as quickly as possible and a possible instance of Reckless debt (http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TechnicalDebtQuadrant.html). A symptom of not thinking there is enough time to mould the code back into a consistent architecture.

Graham</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr T <img src='http://watchitlater.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> ,</p>
<p>I see this effect as part of a general lack of zooming of perspective during development. Quite often teams are under pressure to deliver functionality as quickly as possible and a possible instance of Reckless debt (<a href="http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TechnicalDebtQuadrant.html" rel="nofollow">http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TechnicalDebtQuadrant.html</a>). A symptom of not thinking there is enough time to mould the code back into a consistent architecture.</p>
<p>Graham</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Barritt</title>
		<link>http://watchitlater.com/blog/2009/10/reading-code-vs-searching-code/comment-page-1/#comment-4993</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Barritt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:18:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://watchitlater.com/blog/?p=67#comment-4993</guid>
		<description>Hi Tom,

I have also observed this and, also wondered about its dark side, with very similar set of concerns that you mention here. 

I would actually say that Eclipse positively encourages a &quot;flat&quot; package hierarchy because its flattens package structure and &quot;hides&quot; classes in the navigator view by showing them inside source files. You might aswell have one massive package!

This is one of the reasons I favour intellij, the package view is much cleaner and makes me want to explore it rather than trying to hide it away and use CTRL-T all the time.

So +1 from me at least.

Jim</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Tom,</p>
<p>I have also observed this and, also wondered about its dark side, with very similar set of concerns that you mention here. </p>
<p>I would actually say that Eclipse positively encourages a &#8220;flat&#8221; package hierarchy because its flattens package structure and &#8220;hides&#8221; classes in the navigator view by showing them inside source files. You might aswell have one massive package!</p>
<p>This is one of the reasons I favour intellij, the package view is much cleaner and makes me want to explore it rather than trying to hide it away and use CTRL-T all the time.</p>
<p>So +1 from me at least.</p>
<p>Jim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
