<?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: The myth of &#8220;undesigned&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://agilefocus.com/2009/09/14/the-myth-of-undesigned/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://agilefocus.com/2009/09/14/the-myth-of-undesigned/</link>
	<description>A group weblog for and about Agile software development</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:29:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: William Pietri</title>
		<link>http://agilefocus.com/2009/09/14/the-myth-of-undesigned/comment-page-1/#comment-741</link>
		<dc:creator>William Pietri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://agilefocus.com/?p=445#comment-741</guid>
		<description>Hi, Jeffery. That was exactly the point I was trying to make. Except I'm taking it one step further. The source code is the design, but the finished artifact is the running software, not just the object code.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, Jeffery. That was exactly the point I was trying to make. Except I&#8217;m taking it one step further. The source code is the design, but the finished artifact is the running software, not just the object code.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffrey Aguilera</title>
		<link>http://agilefocus.com/2009/09/14/the-myth-of-undesigned/comment-page-1/#comment-740</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey Aguilera</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:06:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://agilefocus.com/?p=445#comment-740</guid>
		<description>"One group of people makes up some blueprints, and then an entirely different group of people makes physical objects.  That second group is judged not by the utility of the objects, but by conformance to the design."

It's not that this analogy is wrong for software.  The analogy is apt.  But the second group has been entirely automated (by members of the first group.) The second group is the compiler and build tools ... and yes, the compiler is judged based on its conformance to the design (i.e., software.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;One group of people makes up some blueprints, and then an entirely different group of people makes physical objects.  That second group is judged not by the utility of the objects, but by conformance to the design.&#8221;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not that this analogy is wrong for software.  The analogy is apt.  But the second group has been entirely automated (by members of the first group.) The second group is the compiler and build tools &#8230; and yes, the compiler is judged based on its conformance to the design (i.e., software.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
