[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: case against XP (was: PG: Hackers and Painters)
Some impressions on XP, from talking with XP enthusiasts:
1. Among other things, the XP umbrella codifies many pre-existing best
practices (e.g., "unit tests are good"). Nothing wrong with that,
though not all enthusiasts realize that XP didn't invent these things.
2. XP adds to this particular practices that are especially appealing
if you think that hard software engineering disciplines like
requirements analysis, systems architecture, and project planning
are *too* hard.
3. Pair programming doesn't seem very applicable to situations in
which a skilled programmer has to think hard about code,
considering numerous issues and alternatives. I imagine a pair
programmer literally breathing down ones neck is counterproductive
if one has to think hard. I'd also assert that most code either
needs a programmer to think hard about it, or is straightforward
enough that pair programming is an inefficient use of expensive
human resources. I think there's more a place for efficient design
meetings, and for sometimes designating people as on-call for rapid
response to questions.
But how much truth is there to "Development:Languages::XP:LittleLanguages" ?
--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/