Objective achieved, like a boss.... I suspect a lot of the audience agreed in principle with the objective measurement criteria rather than basic code analysis, but will be put off by the amount of work involved without any automated tools; which might be more acceptable for large projects with large teams (or multiple teams) but a lot more effort than can be justified for small teams at the moment... but in principle it's a useful way of measuring quality, and uses both stick and carrot rather than simply the stick to berate your development teams.
And amid all the talk on SQuaRE, there were still a lot of useful hints and tips for handling code reviews in general
The theory presented in this talk was great and seems practical in an idealistic world. However, in many cases, people/developers are lazy, and thus automation of this process is a critical component that I really felt should've "happened" (forgetting about the practicality of course!)
I enjoyed this talk and the potential that the ISO standards highlighted have to drive quality forwards. The concepts are great, I think the lack of tooling and approved standards around it however may put some people off. Regardless, I like the idea but will wait for the standard to be approved before I dive in.
One note for the future - if you have an example project where you've come up with eg the 100 or so items to check against, it might be useful to see in the talk how comprehensive things can be without adversely affecting the time taken to review new code/similar.
good topic, ISO stuff a little dry and difficult to see how this could be used in practise. Though I can see the benefits. Would be great if there were any tools to help with this.
Top notch delivery and I think the content was good. My only complaint would be that I would have loved to have seen more about the effects of applying a model like this to Stuart's projects.
Comments
Comments are closed.
Objective achieved, like a boss.... I suspect a lot of the audience agreed in principle with the objective measurement criteria rather than basic code analysis, but will be put off by the amount of work involved without any automated tools; which might be more acceptable for large projects with large teams (or multiple teams) but a lot more effort than can be justified for small teams at the moment... but in principle it's a useful way of measuring quality, and uses both stick and carrot rather than simply the stick to berate your development teams.
And amid all the talk on SQuaRE, there were still a lot of useful hints and tips for handling code reviews in general
The theory presented in this talk was great and seems practical in an idealistic world. However, in many cases, people/developers are lazy, and thus automation of this process is a critical component that I really felt should've "happened" (forgetting about the practicality of course!)
I enjoyed this talk and the potential that the ISO standards highlighted have to drive quality forwards. The concepts are great, I think the lack of tooling and approved standards around it however may put some people off. Regardless, I like the idea but will wait for the standard to be approved before I dive in.
One note for the future - if you have an example project where you've come up with eg the 100 or so items to check against, it might be useful to see in the talk how comprehensive things can be without adversely affecting the time taken to review new code/similar.
good topic, ISO stuff a little dry and difficult to see how this could be used in practise. Though I can see the benefits. Would be great if there were any tools to help with this.
Top notch delivery and I think the content was good. My only complaint would be that I would have loved to have seen more about the effects of applying a model like this to Stuart's projects.