Related titles. Carousel Previous Carousel Next. Jump to Page. Search inside document. Power Girls. James Perater. Agyt Rahman. Adrian Lasso. Rehan Mehmood. Ambika Joshi. Austin Azenga. Dika Anggara. Amirul Fitri. Sally Tran.
Prince Soni. Julio Rodrigues. Interact people.
Popular in Product Lifecycle Management. Anil Kumar. Anonymous vQrJlEN. Nikhil Deshpande. The difference between this approach and more conventional system development methods is the focus on designing and coding for the needs of today instead of those of tomorrow, next week, or next month. Coding and designing for uncertain future requirements implies the risk of spending resources on something that might not be needed. Related to the "communication" value, simplicity in design and coding should improve the quality of communication. A simple design with very simple code could be easily understood by most programmers in the team.
Feedback is closely related to communication and simplicity. Flaws in the system are easily communicated by writing a unit test that proves a certain piece of code will break.
The direct feedback from the system tells programmers to recode this part. A customer is able to test the system periodically according to the functional requirements, known as user stories. Several practices embody courage. One is the commandment to always design and code for today and not for tomorrow. This is an effort to avoid getting bogged down in design and requiring a lot of effort to implement anything else.
Courage enables developers to feel comfortable with refactoring their code when necessary. Another example of courage is knowing when to throw code away: courage to remove source code that is obsolete, no matter how much effort was used to create that source code. Also, courage means persistence: A programmer might be stuck on a complex problem for an entire day, then solve the problem quickly the next day, if only they are persistent.
The respect value includes respect for others as well as self-respect. Programmers should never commit changes that break compilation, that make existing unit-tests fail, or that otherwise delay the work of their peers. Members respect their own work by always striving for high quality and seeking for the best design for the solution at hand through refactoring. Adopting the four earlier values leads to respect gained from others in the team. Nobody on the team should feel unappreciated or ignored. This ensures a high level of motivation and encourages loyalty toward the team and toward the goal of the project.
This value is very dependent upon the other values, and is very much oriented toward people in a team. Planning, managing and designing are called out explicitly to counter claims that XP doesn't support those activities. He felt XP was defined by its rules, not its practices which are subject to more variation and ambiguity.
He defined two categories: "Rules of Engagement" which dictate the environment in which software development can take place effectively, and "Rules of Play" which define the minute-by-minute activities and rules within the framework of the Rules of Engagement. The principles that form the basis of XP are based on the values just described and are intended to foster decisions in a system development project. The principles are intended to be more concrete than the values and more easily translated to guidance in a practical situation.
Extreme programming sees feedback as most useful if it is done rapidly and expresses that the time between an action and its feedback is critical to learning and making changes. Unlike traditional system development methods, contact with the customer occurs in more frequent iterations. The customer has clear insight into the system that is being developed. He or she can give feedback and steer the development as needed.
Unit tests also contribute to the rapid feedback principle. When writing code, the unit test provides direct feedback as to how the system reacts to the changes one has made. If, for instance, the changes affect a part of the system that is not in the scope of the programmer who made them, that programmer will not notice the flaw. There is a large chance that this bug will appear when the system is in production. This is about treating every problem as if its solution were "extremely simple". Traditional system development methods say to plan for the future and to code for reusability.
Extreme programming rejects these ideas. The advocates of extreme programming say that making big changes all at once does not work. Extreme programming applies incremental changes: for example, a system might have small releases every three weeks. When many little steps are made, the customer has more control over the development process and the system that is being developed. The principle of embracing change is about not working against changes but embracing them.
For instance, if at one of the iterative meetings it appears that the customer's requirements have changed dramatically, programmers are to embrace this and plan the new requirements for the next iteration. The practices in XP have been heavily debated. Critics of XP claim this can lead to costly rework and project scope creep beyond what was previously agreed or funded.
Change control boards are a sign that there are potential conflicts in project objectives and constraints between multiple users. XP's expedited methodology is somewhat dependent on programmers being able to assume a unified client viewpoint so the programmer can concentrate on coding rather than documentation of compromise objectives and constraints. This also applies when multiple programming organizations are involved, particularly organizations which compete for shares of projects.
Historically, XP only works on teams of twelve or fewer people. One way to circumvent this limitation is to break up the project into smaller pieces and the team into smaller groups. It has been claimed that XP has been used successfully on teams of over a hundred developers [ citation needed ]. ThoughtWorks has claimed reasonable success on distributed XP projects with up to sixty people [ citation needed ]. The Developer Perspective on Winning.
XP Is Too Simplistic. I Won't Like Pair Programming. XP Is Weird.
- Culture, Politics and Sport: Blowing the Whistle, Revisited (Routledge Critical Studies in Sport).
- The Book of the Courtier (Dover Value Editions).
- Top Authors.
The First Step. The XP Essentials. Remember the XP Values.
Regression Testing | Testing Extreme Programming
Think Simply. Get Feedback Early and Often. Be Courageous. An Odd Number of Developers. The Customer Won't Write Stories. Management Sets Unrealistic Schedules. Management Doesn't Like Your Estimates. Management Won't Let You Pair. The Cost of Tea in China Doubles. Stand-Up Meetings. Atmosphere and Environment. It Doesn't Stop There. How to Steer. Out in the Open. Requirements are a Dialogue—Not a Document. Learning Roles. The Customer. The Developer.
A Tool to Introduce Reality. How the Roles Work with Multiple Projects. When Roles Are Clear. The Xtreme Hour. Charting the Course. The Customer Writes Stories. The Developers Estimate. Breaking Down Stories. Back to Estimating. Determining Iteration Size. Sorting the Stories. What Plans Are. The Iteration Planning Game. Task Exploration. Iteration Plan Verification. One at a Time.
Fill Your Bag. Keeping Code Clean. Tests as Documentation. How to Write Tests First. What to Test. How to Start Writing Tests First. Testing Challenges. Testing User Interfaces. Testing in Small Spaces. Testing the Web. Tests Have to Run Fast.
Code Quality. The Need for Speed. Reducing Risk. How to Pair Program. Pair-Friendly Space.