我强烈推荐《软件之道：什么真正有效，我们为何相信》（Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It）这本书。这里提交的那篇文章的作者 John Graham-Cumming 在 Amazon.com 上写过这本书的书评：http://www.amazon.com/Making-Software-Really-Works-Believe/d...…
I highly recommend the book "Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It". John Graham-Cumming, the author of the article submitted here, has a review of this book on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Software-Really-Works-Believe/d...…
Andy Oram 与 Greg Wilson 的《软件之道：什么真正有效，我们为何相信》（Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It） Michael Feathers 的《修改代码的艺术》（Working Effectively with Legacy Code） 我们当年的标准 SE 教材是 Ian Sommerville 写的《软件工程》（Software Engineering）。
Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It by Andy Oram & Greg Wilson Working Effectively with Legacy Code by Michael Feathers Our standard text for SE was Software Engineering by Ian Sommerville.
Surprised nobody have mentioned Making software, https://www.amazon.com/Making-Software-Really-Works-Believe/... It takes a empirical view on the software process. Does writing tests first help you develop better code faster? Can code metrics predict…
……参考书目大概长这样，随便挑一本：* 《代码大全》（Code Complete）- McConnell * 《软件质量经济学》（The Economics of Software Quality）- Capers Jones * 《软件工程的事实与谬误》（Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering）- Robert Glass * 《软件之道》（Making Software）- Oram & Wilson ……还有很多其他的。并非所有参考资料都经受住了时间的检验，L. Bossavit 在他的书《软件工程的矮妖精》（Leprechauns of Software Engineering）中描述了若干软件开发……
…referenced text looks like, pick any of the following: * Code Complete - McConnell * The Economics of Software Quality - Capers Jones * Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering - Robert Glass * Making Software - Oram & Wilson ... and there are many others. Not all references have survived the test of time, L. Bossavit describes in his book " Leprechauns of Software Engineering" how several software development…
…Software Engineering', Robert Glass. Glass presents a list of things everybody knows, or ought to know, and gives both academic and opinionated support and/or critique for why they are and aren't so. 'Making Software', Oram and Wilson. An edited collection of papers on evidence-based software engineering. 'The Deadline', Tom DeMarco. A thinly disguised commercial for his advice on how to organize software development…
……以及反对 TDD 的证据。我的观点是，目前并没有足够的证据来下定论。）既然这是一场探讨，你读过任何关于 TDD 话题的讨论吗？比如，《软件之道》（Making Software，即 Oram 和 Wilson 的书）里就有一章非常出色地总结了研究成果。如果没读过，那这场探讨就相当不客观了，不是吗？你列出了一堆论文，但根本没说明你想……
…and evidence against TDD. My argument is that there isn't enough evidence to make a conclusion.) Given that this is a discourse, have you read any of the discussions of the topic of TDD? For example, "Making Software" (e.g Oram and Wilson) has an excellent chapter summarizing the research results. If not, then it's a rather unbalanced discourse, no? You pointed to a list of papers, but didn't describe what you wanted…
我强烈推荐《软件之道：什么真正有效，我们为何相信》（Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It）这本书。这里提交的那篇文章的作者 John Graham-Cumming 在 Amazon.com 上写过这本书的书评：http://www.amazon.com/Making-Software-Really-Works-Believe/d...…
I highly recommend the book "Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It". John Graham-Cumming, the author of the article submitted here, has a review of this book on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Software-Really-Works-Believe/d...…
Andy Oram 与 Greg Wilson 的《软件之道：什么真正有效，我们为何相信》（Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It） Michael Feathers 的《修改代码的艺术》（Working Effectively with Legacy Code） 我们当年的标准 SE 教材是 Ian Sommerville 写的《软件工程》（Software Engineering）。
Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It by Andy Oram & Greg Wilson Working Effectively with Legacy Code by Michael Feathers Our standard text for SE was Software Engineering by Ian Sommerville.
居然没人提到《软件之道》（Making Software），https://www.amazon.com/Making-Software-Really-Works-Believe/... 它用实证的视角来看待软件开发流程。先写测试真的能帮你更快写出更好的代码吗？代码度量指标能预测……
Surprised nobody have mentioned Making software, https://www.amazon.com/Making-Software-Really-Works-Believe/... It takes a empirical view on the software process. Does writing tests first help you develop better code faster? Can code metrics predict…
……参考书目大概长这样，随便挑一本：* 《代码大全》（Code Complete）- McConnell * 《软件质量经济学》（The Economics of Software Quality）- Capers Jones * 《软件工程的事实与谬误》（Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering）- Robert Glass * 《软件之道》（Making Software）- Oram & Wilson ……还有很多其他的。并非所有参考资料都经受住了时间的检验，L. Bossavit 在他的书《软件工程的矮妖精》（Leprechauns of Software Engineering）中描述了若干软件开发……
…referenced text looks like, pick any of the following: * Code Complete - McConnell * The Economics of Software Quality - Capers Jones * Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering - Robert Glass * Making Software - Oram & Wilson ... and there are many others. Not all references have survived the test of time, L. Bossavit describes in his book " Leprechauns of Software Engineering" how several software development…
……《软件工程的事实与谬误》，Robert Glass 著。Glass 列出了一份人尽皆知、或者说理应知晓的常识清单，并从学术和主观立场两方面给出了它们为何属实或不属实的依据与批判。《软件之道》（Making Software），Oram 和 Wilson 编著。一本关于循证软件工程的论文集。《最后期限》（The Deadline），Tom DeMarco 著。一本打着小说幌子的软广，推销他关于如何组织软件开发的建议……
…Software Engineering', Robert Glass. Glass presents a list of things everybody knows, or ought to know, and gives both academic and opinionated support and/or critique for why they are and aren't so. 'Making Software', Oram and Wilson. An edited collection of papers on evidence-based software engineering. 'The Deadline', Tom DeMarco. A thinly disguised commercial for his advice on how to organize software development…
……以及反对 TDD 的证据。我的观点是，目前并没有足够的证据来下定论。）既然这是一场探讨，你读过任何关于 TDD 话题的讨论吗？比如，《软件之道》（Making Software，即 Oram 和 Wilson 的书）里就有一章非常出色地总结了研究成果。如果没读过，那这场探讨就相当不客观了，不是吗？你列出了一堆论文，但根本没说明你想……
…and evidence against TDD. My argument is that there isn't enough evidence to make a conclusion.) Given that this is a discourse, have you read any of the discussions of the topic of TDD? For example, "Making Software" (e.g Oram and Wilson) has an excellent chapter summarizing the research results. If not, then it's a rather unbalanced discourse, no? You pointed to a list of papers, but didn't describe what you wanted…