|XP is just a number|
I'm a big fan of Perl, am excited about Perl6, and find Extreme Programming to be very interesting. We've started down the XP path at work and already I'm enjoying greater productivity. In one of our last stand-up meetings (where we sit down, oddly enough), one of the programmers asked a question about Perl6 in relation to XP and I mentioned that Perl6 is being designed to support XP. He asked what I meant and I realized that I was just parroting (ha!) what I had just read on http://use.perl.org.
In a question about design goals, the following was offered as one of the answers:
Beyond the ability to evolve Perl itself is the ability to evolve solutions written in Perl. Among other things, this involves the scalability of solutions in Perl. The user must be able to start quick-and-dirty and grow the program into a robust large system. Users must be able to switch programming styles, paradigms, and methodologies as they refactor their programs in the light of new requirements. Perl must not only be an example of, but must also support, Extreme Programming.
I can understand the desire to be able to start small and expand upon it. I can also understand the idea behind being able to easily rethink and refactor a problem. However, the answer still seems to be a bit vague. In fact, it almost seems like a marketing response: "yes, yes, we're working on PSI::ESP. It'll be out in the next release."
Does anyone familiar with Perl6 care to offer concrete examples of what was meant by the XP quote?
Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.