Implementation Patterns [Kent Beck] on bapoperetu.gq *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. “Kent is a master at creating code that communicates well, is easy to. Kent Beck. Draft copyright (c) , Kent Beck, All rights reserved Another way to look at implementation patterns is as a way of thinking,. “What do I patterns book because the format of the patterns is idiosyncratic and ad hoc. (literally. I've just read Robert C. Martin's Clean Code and Kent Beck's Implementation Patterns back to back. I actually picked up Clean Code first.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
implementation patterns kent beck pdf. History. Patterns originated as an architectural concept by Christopher Alexander (/78). In , Kent. Beck and. Implementation Patterns Kent Beck. Nenhuma oferta encontrada. ISBN ISBN Ano: / Páginas: Idioma: inglês. out guide of Implementation Patterns Kent Beck composed by implementation patterns kent beck pdf kent beck (born ) is an american.
I've grown increasingly disenchanted with the rigid definitions of what a pattern should look like. I know that Alexander and his original stuff had a very specific: "this section, this section and then the three dots, and that section" and so on.
And I don't find that kind of formatting helpful.
If I have a pattern and I don't have anything to say in a section, I'd rather not make something up just to follow the form, so these patterns are in a freer form. The phrase "ad-hoc" literally means build for a particular purpose.
So I tried an ad-hoc style here, where each pattern is presented in the form that I think works best. So sometimes if there is a pattern and then 3 variants of it I will have 3 separate patterns, explicitly named and so on, sometimes if the variants are small enough I will just leave them in the original pattern.
What I try to be careful about is that the intent of the pattern form was followed in each of the patterns. I say "here is the context in which this makes sense, here are the alternatives, here are the forces impinging on this decision and clearly here is what to do about it in a very specific sense". So the composed methods are a good example. By the time you get to the answer, the answer is fairly clear, it says compose methods out of other methods and have the statements in the method be at similar level of abstraction, that is the commandment part of the patterns and each pattern here has that kind of clear expression of the: "Ok, here is what you do.
If I just said: "Communicate clearly", there is a lot of people that do a lot of things with the intent of communicating clearly, some more successful than others.
With patterns there is this sense of accountability, "Ok, you are telling me to communicate Kent, but how am I supposed to do that". Well here is Compose Method, this is a way you can communicate. Here is Guard Clause, here is a way that you can communicate.
XP is a rather practice oriented methodology. Can you describe the relationship between implementation patterns and XP and how they work together? I think the easy part of XP is practice related, but there is 3 legs on the stool: practices, values and principles and I think people who are successful applying XP are paying attention to all 3.
This gets back a little bit to some of my disenchantment with the direction of agile development in general, people are now asking the question: "How am I going to do agile development? That is agility. Yes, there is a lot of practices that come out of that but to me that is where it starts, it's this attitude.
If somebody understood a bunch of practices and tried to do them, you could do agile development without being agile and it's a disaster because you're acting out of harmony with what you really believe when you do that. So you're more or less saying that you have to be agile to do agile, but you can't do agile if you are not agile?
That is my opinion, yes. The times when I have been closed off, when I haven't really listen to what is going on in the real world, when I built a fantasy picture in my head of how things are, I haven't been agile. And I have all the same skills, I program the same, I know the patterns and I have the tools, but without connection to what other people are saying about what's going on in the world, then you can't really be agile. So in in most situations when people learn agile, they just learn how to do it, but they don't really change their belief system?
I was going to say that I think that that's the easy way to teach agile development, but I don't think it's actually easy at all.
I think it's very hard to pretend that all you have to do is learn TDD and learn continuous integration and learn to use JUnit and learn to answer the 3 questions at the daily stand-up and then you're agile, because it's not connected with reality. It's easy in the sense you don't have to think very hard to come up with a set of Powerpoint slides that let you explain agile development that way, but I think it's really hard to deliver that with a straight face, because pretty soon you are getting a lot feedback that doesn't work that way.
I think that all 3 legs of the stool have to be there or it falls over. I think that you do need to understand how to program well in order to program well, and that is where a book like "Implementation Patterns" comes in. Here is a set of skills you can really master, and it doesn't have to be these patterns, but I think understanding your own programming style at this level is very important to being agile because it matters whether you technically do a good job or not, but that's enough.
I think you also have to understand and hold the value system that is consistent with agility: communication, simplicity, feedback, origin, respect is the one from XP, I think that value system is very much in harmony with being agile and then to have a set of principles so when none on the practices really fit you quickly back up and say: "None of the practices fit but in principle the XP way to solve this problem would be "blah", so let's go do that".
Once you have all 3 legs of the stool then you have the chance to really be agile. But don't you have to start by what others are doing, not really understanding it? Alistair Cockburn talks about Shu-Ha-Ri levels. You start at the Shu level and work up.
Aren't the practices and the pattern stuff a way to get the belief system? It's nice because it's this nice little box I can say which level am I at and I can understand it all, but I don't think people really learn that.
Even Martial Arts don't really learn that way.
I watched my kid learning karate and that is not how he was taught at all. Yes, there are forms that you follow, but they begin sparring very quickly and in sparring it's completely improvised, but that is not something that they way didn't tell they completely mastered "blah, blah, blah" to do, I think there is lots of cycles involved and in my own practice of programming, there are times when I am just following rules and there are times when I'm breaking rules and there is times when I'm just programming and the rules are irrelevant, but it's not like it cycles through any kind of: "Well it's not time for me to brake the rules yet" so I don't think people learn that way.
As for Implementation Patterns; as I mentioned before, I would have liked the book to include more code. So while the back cover of the book promises 77 patterns, you are actually getting less. And finally, while the last chapter describes some nice patterns to use when writing a framework, these patterns are not applied to the timer framework in appendix A that immediately follows.
One thing I dearly miss in both books is how to deal with existing frameworks. Most code we write does not exist in a vacuum but uses a lot of frameworks such as EJB3, Spring, Wicket or whatever. While modern frameworks are less invasive when compared to older frameworks such as EJB2, they still have an impact on your architecture as I recently discovered when using JPA on a new project but more that in a later blog To conclude, I think these books are a valuable read for anyone who wants to become a better programmer.
As they are easy to read Implementation Patterns is only about pages! Read it. Learn it.
Then live […]. About the two books not covering how to deal with exiting code: Thanks for the tip. IP, pages. Clean Code, pages.
IP use Adobe Garamond and correct leading, which is more legible…. Wonderful book. It changed the way I am writing code. The book is capturing your attention after the first chapter in which is refactoring some code. CC, IP and Refactoring.
Your email address will not be published. Clean Code vs. Implementation Patterns. January 26th, Another big difference is that Clean Code contains a lot more actual code the subject of both books after all than Implementation Patterns.
And after that our attention shifted towards process XP, Agile. Something else these books share is one very important value to keep in mind when writing code. And that is Communication as Kent Beck summarizes it in one word. The code you write will be read more times than it was written and by more people. So to minimize the cost of maintenance, your code should be clear to those people or yourself reading it a later date.
It should be nice to read, it should clearly communicate its design, and it should not be overly complex.
This comes forward in such heuristics as they are called in Clean Code or patterns as Implementation Patterns refers to them as: Instead of just starting with get or set and slapping on a word or two, actually describe what is going on.
Not only does this make the code easier to understand, you may also discover reusable bits of code this way. Like the previous pattern, this helps the reader of your code to understand what is going on. To start with Clean Code: