Talk:Martin Fowler (software engineer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Errr, another of my 'in my nitpicking mood' comments. Is this guy 'encyclopedia material'? The article seems to be describing one person's admiration of him as a lecturer and that he wrote a book. Maybe he's more 'widespread' than that, if so I apologize, but the article doesn't make him seem so. Rgamble

If you think he's not WP:NOTABLE then you should request an WP:AFD. Rstandefer 18:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fdiotalevi: Martin Fowler is absolutely 'encyclopedia material' because of his 5 popolar and well-written books. I added more details

Fowler is definately notable for his innovative work on software development over three decades. Check out this Google search for 'Martin Fowler' --- Peter Campbell 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support the previous statements — Martin Fowler is one of the most influential persons in the realm of object-oriented design. --Cameltrader 14:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise I also fully support the previous statements — Martin Fowler is highly influential in the UML and java arena. Wikimsd 10:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone replace the photo that's currently being used with this one: http://flickr.com/photos/adewale_oshineye/2933030620/ I took both photos and I've licensed them appropriately. However I don't seem to have the right kind of Wikipedia account to be able to upload photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ade oshineye (talk • contribs) 09:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of his education other than secondary school. does anyone know which university he went to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.7 (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American blogger?[edit]

What is the qualification for being listed in the category American Bloggers? Does one have to be American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.136.55 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

Graduation[edit]

"He graduated at University College London in 1986." Which degree? There is no evidence on the net, that Mr. Fowler holds a degree at all. Especially on his homepage. Therefore this sentence should be deleted, because the only reference for graduation is this very wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.195.238 (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“I grew up in Walsall, England, going to Queen Mary’s Grammar School. I went to University College London from 1983-6 where I got a BSc (ENG) in Electronic Engineering and Computer Science. ” -- [1] MarkBernstein (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possible he's updated the page since then as this is an old comment. I have added the about me page as a ref in his infobox which I think deals with the issue. — Strongjam (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bliki[edit]

The blicki link is broken or seems incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalgamate (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing contentious claim[edit]

I removed the following text: His 1999 book on Refactoring popularized the practice, a cornerstone of agile development methodologies

Even if the source were suitable quality it neither makes the claim that "His 1999 book on Refactoring popularized the practice" nor that the practice is "a cornerstone of agile development methodologies".

Further the following statement: He introduced Presentation Model (PM), an architectural pattern must be sourced. I'll delay removal to allow time for proper sourcing. 169.57.0.219 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a contentious claim. The source isn't ideal for the claim, but the claim is common knowledge. I'm moderately familiar with the pertinent literature and I've seen no arguable reason to think it contentious. Nor need the Presenetation Model be sourced urgently -- again, it's very adequately sourced in the bibliography. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Fowler’s Refactoring is cited by nearly every subsequent monograph in the area -- notably Kerievsky’s Refactoring To Patterns and Bob Martin’s Clean Code. It was among the StackOverflow "most influential programming books". I'm having a good deal of difficulty imagining a counter-argument, and an even more difficult time why someone would wish to. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could be worded better (maybe attributing?), but I agree with you. I fail to see how this is contentious claim. — Strongjam (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither one nor one-hundred editor's "common knowledge" can be used as a reliable source. Whether it's contentious is irrelevant, the existing citation doesn't support either claim. If you revert my deletion again I'll report you for misrepresenting sources. 169.57.0.212 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anom (169.57.0.219/169.57.0.212), this search shows a number of sources confirming that the term refactoring is popularized by Martin Fowler's 1999 book. Take for example the quotes:

  • The name of this book plays upon the term refactoring, popularized in Martin Fowler's book, Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code (Addison-Wesley Professional, 1999). Refactoring is the practice of altering code to improve its ...
  • Refactoring. What is it? Why do it? In brief, refactoring is the gradual improvement of a code base by making small changes that ... However, the term was popularized by Martin Fowler in 1999 in his book Refactoring (Addison-Wesley, 1999)...

The quotes in these two sources confirm the claim. -- Mdd (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the centrality of Refactoring in agile practice, see Joshua Kerievsky, Refactoring To Patterns, Pearson Education, Boston, 2005. p. 5. "TDD and continuous refactoring provide a lean, iterative and disciplined style of programming that maximizes focus, relaxation, and productivity. “Rapid unhurriedness” is how Martin Fowler describes it [as quoted in Beck, TDD[ while Ward Cunningham explains that it’s more about continuous analysis and design that it is about testing.” See also Robert C. Martin, Clean Code, Pearson Education, Boston, 2009. p. 285. “In his wonderful book Refactoring, Martin Fowler identified many different “Code Smells.” The list that follows includes many of Martin’s smells and adds many more of my own.” Also, Michael C. Feathers, Working Effectively With Legacy Code, Pearson Education, Boston.2005. p. 415: “Refactoring is a core technique for improving code. The canonical reference for refactoring is Martin Fowler’s book Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code ” — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 14:09, 30 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I think we can easily make the claim that it's central to TDD, I've found a few sources for that as well. I think that's a better claim as "Agile development" has become a very broad term over the years. — Strongjam (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Strongjam: Refactoring obviously central to TDD, but TDD is equally central to Extreme and Agile methodologies. The canonical text is Kent Beck, Extreme Programming Explained. Addison Wesley, 2000. There, chapter 10 “A Quick Overview” begins with a list of “the major areas of practice in XP" Twelve practices are listed; Refactoring is the sixth. (TDD is the fifth.) It’s good to adhere to the sources, of course, but the encyclopedia should not be twisted into knots by an individual anonymous editor who has not, as yet, offered any reason or argument to reject what seems thoroughly established. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkBernstein: Generally agree, but I just see TDD as an easy connection to make, and more precise (or maybe XP.) Agile development is very broad. I think given the sourcing though we can just say agile as TDD & XP all fit in the agile umbrella. — Strongjam (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Style[edit]

With WP:CITEVAR in mind. Are there objections to me switching the cite style to Citation Style 1? — Strongjam (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External link at the bottom[edit]

It contains a comma. Not sure how to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefek99 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefek99: It was listed twice in Wikidata, which caused the issue. I've removed one of the duplicate entries from there. — Strongjam (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Scientist[edit]

It has been objected that Martin Fowler’s job title of "chief scientist" should not be used, because he is not a scientist. This raises two questions. First, is a computer scientists a scientist? And second, can a computer scientist without a PhD -- Fowler holds a BSc (ENG) -- be described as a scientist?

On the first, I agree that computer science is not precisely a science. Yet, society has elected to retain the name "computer science" and continues to place computer science departments in faculties of science, applied science, or engineering. On the second, any number of eminent computer scientists have lacked PhDs; after all, the very first doctorates in computer science (Andy van Dam and Dick Wexelblatt) were only awarded in 1966. Fowler is prominent in the research community, and his work on Refactoring has been extraordinarily influential, one of the most influential books in the past decade.

The use of the title (which I also hold, at it happens) stems, as far as I know, from its introduction by Danny Hillis, also a computer scientist. (My degree is a doctorate, in chemistry.) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the second, any number of eminent computer scientists have lacked PhDs;. Indeed, Bill Joy and Ken Thompson for example. The idea that one needs a Ph.D to be a scientist is silly anyway. Michael Faraday had hardly any formal education and was still a scientist. — Strongjam (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Software Engineer[edit]

A question has been raised (by @DHeyward:, of all people) asking whether Martin Fowler is properly described as a software engineer. "Software Engineering" is a term that became popular in the 1970s and 1980s to describe a systematic or disciplined approach to software development, one that promised the sort of control over process that civil engineering was seen to offer over construction. It is true that some forms of engineering are professions, like medicine and law, while software engineering is regulated neither by law nor professional custom. Nevertheless, the usages is firmly ensconced in the professional literature, as Wikipedia's (adequate) article on Software Engineering and (troubled) article on Software Engineers both indicate. The Agile Movement, with which Fowler is closely associated, represents a reaction against the excesses of early software engineering methodologies, and Fowler’s position in that movement has always stood in support of retention of the principles of engineering while rejecting efforts to bureaucratize management and planning. "Software developer" is not in this case a suitable alternative as a "developer" is typically responsible for design as well as implementation, while Fowler’s consulting work focuses on implementation. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the usual sour grapes from Wikipedia. Someone who has done more to shift software development to a reliable engineering discipline than almost any other single person (and I specifically include the "one genius coder" Knuths and Kernigans in this), vs the Wiki peanut gallery. I have no idea who D Heyward is, but I don't get through a working day without wielding the Fowler signature edition Cluebat'o'truth.
As already noted, nor is there any chartered engineer status for software engineers in the same way that there is for civil engineers or pressure vessel designers. Any monkey can trade as a "software engineer". This one does. Viam FerreamTalk 09:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Software engineer is regulated like other forms of engineering (which means it varies by state). The NCEES created a PE exam for software engineering in 2012. According to an article in the IEEE The Institute, at least 30 states require licensure for software engineering if you offer your services to the public. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So unless Fowler is advertising his services in one of those regulated states, and he isn't a chartered engineer (a status he surely merits anyway - maybe he simply is one?), then he's just as entitled to call himself a software engineer as anyone.
"Chartered engineer" in my country (UK) has negligible public status, compared to an accountant or a gas fitter. I have the qualifications and career to be one, but I've never bothered and no-one has ever asked me. "Chartered software engineer", my own field, would be faintly ludicrous, because the BCS, the body who control it, have no credible status themselves. Whatever they do operate is probably called either a "Chartered Card Punchificator" and requires a degree in Latin and Fortran, or else they've re-launched it as an "IT/IS/ICT/I.+ Consultant" (or whatever this year's government acronym is) and it's as much use as an ITIL manual. In Germany (where people in factories are split between "Herr Engineer" and the guys who sweep the floor) I always wear a good suit and make sure they treat me as an Engineer - lest they ask me to unblock a toilet.
I'd like to be a Chartered Software Engineer. But in the UK, it's just not a status of note. Fowler is British. Viam FerreamTalk 15:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His residence isn't in the UK, it's in the US. As such we have to be cautious of presenting him as an "engineer" if he doesn't have the appropriate licensure. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't even call himself a "software engineer." Use his web page for reference and it's clear that he is a "software developer." Those are the terms he uses and those are the areas he is an expert in. --DHeyward (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 December 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Martin Fowler (software engineer). Favonian (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Page views for Martin Fowler and Martin Fowler (EastEnders) are quite similar, though overall the EastEnders character has more views. Some days one has more views, other days the other has more views, suggesting there is no primary topic. However, I'm not sure what the disambiguator for the real person should be. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 18:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Fowler_(software_engineer)&oldid=1202117820"