> Why not? Who says that? Who proved that system understanding is not just more complex pattern matching?
Yes indeed. That's a perplexing statement considering that a central concept or software engineering is architecture patterns.
back
1 comments
> central concept or software engineering is architecture patterns.
Architecture patterns can be of help in that regard and they also can be very error-prone, as right now I am in the process of removing a bug introduced through misunderstanding of one rather old singleton.
> Both RUP and PSP/TSP do stand on the ground of defect prevention. All sorts of defects, from incorrect sets of requirements to memory corruption.
Was this comment generated by an hallucinating agent? It reads like poorly pieced together word soup.
English is not my native language.
PSP/TSP (Personal and Team Software Processes) and RUP (Rational's Uniform Process, to a lesser extent) are very valuable approaches to software engineering. Please, read about them, they are very interesting.
> English is not my native language.
That's not it. It's the random word soup. PSP/TSP has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.
PSP/TSP have everything to do with the discussion.