Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!nuzba.szn.dk!pnx.dk!amsnews11.chello.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:30:54 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 22 Message-ID: <12411715.562.1321813854491.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlm15> References: <4908121.2133.1321762391730.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prou19> Reply-To: comp.lang.java.programmer@googlegroups.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.164.137.214 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1321813854 14225 127.0.0.1 (20 Nov 2011 18:30:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:30:54 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.164.137.214; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:10108 Novice wrote: > Lew wrote: >> There's a comprehensive little pamphlet reviewing various software >> development methodologies called /Wicked Problems, Righteous >> Solutions/ by DeGrace and Stahl, 1990, that is as relevant today as >> when first published. >> http://www.google.com/search?q=ISBN%20013590126X > > I'm trying to figure out what kinds of things an interviewer from the > technical side of the shop - as opposed to HR - is going to expect. I'm > not sure how open-minded they will be to someone who wants a job but > doesn't seem to have much prior contact with specific methodologies so I > was hoping to get a list of the key methodologies. Add Agile to the list in /Wicked Problems.../ and you'll have that list. Also, is there one on Wikipedia, perhaps, as Arved Sandstrom wrote: > You could probably do worse than to read > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_development_methodology. > This is of value primarily because it introduces a lot of common terminology. ? -- Lew