What is the chapter's clear and approachable take away message?
Read the inductive software engineering manifesto (or don't, now that you have the summary)
Accessible?
Is the chapters written for a generalist audience (no excessive use of technical terminology) with a minimum of diagrams and references?
How can it be made more accessible to generalist?
The summary of the inductive SE manifesto is great. I won't comment on the manifesto itself, because if you change things, it wouldn't be a summary anymore, but as a summary, it works well.
Size?
Is the chapter the right length?
Should anything missing be added?
Can anything superfluous be removed (e.g. by deleting some section that does not work so well or by using less jargon, less formulae, lees diagrams, less references).?
What are the aspects of the chapter that authors SHOULD change?
I was not too happy with the introduction -- it starts with name-dropping, which gives it an insider-only flavor. I would prefer a motivation stating why a term like "inductive SE" would be needed, or how it would delineate itself from, say, empirical SE. Also, it wouldn't hurt to define the term "induction" before using it -- yes, I know what induction means in this context, but again, there's a lost chance to delineate the inductive approach to SE from, say, the deductive approach. In that sense, the chapter does not really deliver (yet) on the promise given in the title, but could easily do so by positioning "inductive SE" clearly with respect to alternatives.
Gotta Mantra?
We encouraged (but did not require) the chapter title to be a mantra or something cute/catchy, i.e., some slogan reflecting best practice for data science for SE? If you have suggestion for a better title, please put them here.
Inductive SE is way cool.
Best Points
What are the best points of the chapter that the authors should NOT change?
tzimmermsr
commented
8 years ago
Title of chapter
Inductive Software Engineering: What we do IS Different
URL to the chapter
https://github.com/ds4se/chapters/blob/master/menzies/inductiveManifesto.md
Message?
What is the chapter's clear and approachable take away message?
Read the inductive software engineering manifesto (or don't, now that you have the summary)
Accessible?
Is the chapters written for a generalist audience (no excessive use of technical terminology) with a minimum of diagrams and references? How can it be made more accessible to generalist?
The summary of the inductive SE manifesto is great. I won't comment on the manifesto itself, because if you change things, it wouldn't be a summary anymore, but as a summary, it works well.
Size?
Is the chapter the right length? Should anything missing be added? Can anything superfluous be removed (e.g. by deleting some section that does not work so well or by using less jargon, less formulae, lees diagrams, less references).? What are the aspects of the chapter that authors SHOULD change?
I was not too happy with the introduction -- it starts with name-dropping, which gives it an insider-only flavor. I would prefer a motivation stating why a term like "inductive SE" would be needed, or how it would delineate itself from, say, empirical SE. Also, it wouldn't hurt to define the term "induction" before using it -- yes, I know what induction means in this context, but again, there's a lost chance to delineate the inductive approach to SE from, say, the deductive approach. In that sense, the chapter does not really deliver (yet) on the promise given in the title, but could easily do so by positioning "inductive SE" clearly with respect to alternatives.
Gotta Mantra?
We encouraged (but did not require) the chapter title to be a mantra or something cute/catchy, i.e., some slogan reflecting best practice for data science for SE? If you have suggestion for a better title, please put them here.
Inductive SE is way cool.
Best Points
What are the best points of the chapter that the authors should NOT change?
All from "Principle #1".