|This page was nominated for deletion on 24 July 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.|
I have cleaned what seemed to be the most biased or uncertain affirmations. Nontheless, this entry still lacks credible sources.
This article has a strong bias against its subject and reads like FUD spread by people trying to sell more programming-methodology books. It paints in very broad strokes, with pointless phrases like, "typical cowboy coding" - as meaningful as saying, "typical non-blonde", since cowboy coding is mainly defined by what it's *not*. Other gems include, "no initial definition of the purpose or scope of the project". So the "typical" cowboy programmer just sits down at the computer and starts typing code without knowing what the program is supposed to do? Please. The article needs a more balanced view than: "You can't write good software if you don't use a strongly defined & enforced programming-methodology. (So go buy more 'Agile' books)."
This article is one big agile advertisement. 220.127.116.11 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of cowboy coding but the bit about ignoring source control is total nonsense. 18.104.22.168 01:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking for the cowboy coding slogan: "Ready! Fire! Aim!"
The advantages and disadvantages contain contradictory items, for example "cowboy coding is scalable" vs "cowboy coding doesn't scale well" (the latter stance being the better argumented one, IMHO). I'll fix the article when I have time. Uttumuttu 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The most contentious claim on this page is that cowboy coding is "empirically proven". I have no agile programming axe to grind, but have met my fair share of cowboy programmers and the only thing their code is proven to do is to apparently work for a while, as it stores up bugs for competent programmers to fix, and hopefully doesn't actually kill the business it's supposed to serve meanwhile. Cow133 09:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
"Stodgy corporate types might see this as a disadvantage, but recent university research has confirmed otherwise." There is no link to the "recent university research". I also imagine this website was not a place for original research in the first place.
Could we clean out the line above entirely? It seems biased at best, unverifiable at worst. Aschrock 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The term "Cowboy coding" carries heavy negative connotations. This isn't a "methodology" so much as an insult. The entry should not be "scrubbed" to remove bias, it should be documented as a derogatory label for an anti-pattern, and differentiated from a less biased name for a related methodology (such as "Code_and_fix" as labeled by Steve McConnell in Rapid Development)--which by the way is an article in serious need of help as well. Stevelle 22:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Where are the references for the "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections? Who has "characterized", "described" and so forth? Classic weasel-wording. Reading this article I get the strong impression that someone is setting up a straw man. mdf 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Inexperienced developers? This section should go completely in my view as inexperienced developers is a cause of and not an effect of cowboy coding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Note from a Cowboy Coder
As unlikely as this article reads, it's very precise and important to recognize. Most small companies do implement Cowboy Coding - usually under the misnomer of Rapid Application Development. It's risky, but can also be profitable for small companies by keeping the overhead down. It should be recognized, especially when a smaller company begins to grow and try to apply more advanced development cycles.
Most companies would be reluctant to reveal this method to their clients - it's far from impressive. And as the nature of this development method centers around a lack of documentation, it will be challenging to find documentation on the topic, I think. Perhaps a proper survey would accommodate this. --Fabricari (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I fear some users above have taken this article personally. Those comments seem so strange to me, as I think it is hard to get emotional about "software design concepts". I read the article, and then this talk page. The talk page surprised me. The article certainly does not seem like an advertizement (maybe it's been updated). I encourage editors to be "detatched" from this subject, and beware of your edits if you "self-identify" as a cowboy coder. I have fallen into this anti-pattern before. It does have a nice property: it makes you feel good at the time. Ace Frahm (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Code and recode
Read this to the bottom and perhaps find a way to improve this article, there can be good cowboy and bad cowboy development. I realize I do it in this way, I code it once, find the bugs then recode and refactor it as to completely avoid those problems. Its fast, its easy and it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Are there actually people out there proponing Cowboy Programming as the right way to do things? All comments I see here, reflects that it is kind of an inofficial method, but it is called something else, like RAD or so, and some external links reflect over the contents in this article. Isn't Cowboy Programming just a derogatory phrase over a set of less organised and less formalised methods generally perceived as something else? Then the article should treat the topic Cowboy Programming not as a real method, but as a "state of the art" real life situation, kind of, when diverse methods fail. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you'd call me a "proponent", but I can say a few things here. Number one, this line has a silly looking error, and reads funny (grammar):
"Cowboy coding is common at the hobbyist- or student-level ***where developers may initially unfamiliar*** with the technologies, such as the build tools, that the project requires."
Note my triple stars for the elegant "syntax highlight". The article definitely needs some work, and I agree with the person who also finds it silly that people get emotionally stirred about software design concepts. My personal opinion of 'cowboy coding' is that the term is racist, and we should lobby to change it! No, just kidding, haha... But I think it certainly is a valid concept under CERTAIN circumstances. Not that my opinion really amounts to jack, but just listen... First case: Student needs to write a simple calculator program in BASIC. Why should the student spend 6 months planning and prototyping under stringent design guidelines when he/she can finish the project and learn how to improve his/her actual knowledge of the language/syntax? Case 2: Very small, open source project or very small business wants to make a public application prototype to test the viability of certain designs. Once again, why introduce unnecessary overhead? Case 3: This is the one time you could say I use 'cowboy' code. I'm obsessive, and think about programming all the time and what sorts of new things I can create or introduce into existing architecture. I'm always dreaming up concepts of the most efficient ways to represent real-world scenarios on a CPU. For a slightly silly example, let's say I want to create a program which accurately models the life of a squirrel and its behaviors. I think of different ideas, and I have to try some out in real code to organize my thoughts. I instantly go sit down and just start writing code and doing simple, un-choreographed tests. I might think of ways to enumerate the squirrels behaviors with bit-wise operations, or how to serialize information about the squirrel for transfer in a TCP client/server relationship. I jot down what seems to work (and doesn't) in my messy sribbly notebooks. All valuable information for a structured development cycle. Before all the "red tape" is introduced, I've got some unofficial, personal notes and ideas to bring to the table and speed things up. After that, I move into TDD and get highly structured in proving my concepts. From there on out, I pursue whatever design concepts are the most valid for the project at hand.
So yes, I think we should tone down the emotions, and avoid bashing on things that other people like. If it works for them, it's their "bull to ride". No one is asking you to grab the reigns, "cowboy". :) Some of you might be able to appreciate a little (un?)organized chaos before a project becomes extremely rigid and structured. It does feel good to have a little bit of creative freedom and fluidity.
Thanks for your time!
P.S.- Duh, I did not mistake this as some forum. I think my post pertains to the article due to the debate about what this concept truly is... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
"Agile" development works well with brown-field projects with short release cycles but where there are large amounts of work to be done, it works well to allow the development stage to be a bit more "cowboy", as long as you have some code reviews in place and communication between developers, in particular to use of common tools and how their work interacts with each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Much ado about nothing
This whole entry seems overdone. Having used the "cowboy" term over the years, I can guarantee that there was never any connotation other than negative. I can't think of a single professional software developer who would use it in any other than a derogatory way. May I suggest this would be a better entry if it were "dumbed way down" to the effect:
"A jargon term used among professional software developers, referring disparagingly to an undisciplined approach to software development. The term is subjective, relative to the speaker's understanding of some more structured/disciplined (and by implication, superior) approach. As increasing software complexity drove early developers to adopt more disciplined practices, the term came into usage as a reference to "the old way", especially as applied to resistance to the new disciplines.
"The term has reference to the solitary, fiercely independent, and often stubborn cowboys of the American West in the 1800's."
As a freelance mercenary, i am worked in several companies under different style of management, Cowboy is bad, it is not so easy to planning a project but, other styles are even worst, ITIL, PMP, Agile... all of them are not perfect and depend in the team. The main advantage of Cowboy is that is so quick.
In resume, if the team is poor, then it will fail, no matter the planning or bureaucracy involved on it, otherwise, if the team is well formed (clockwork) then they don't need any extra stuff such create useless diagram or spend time in useless meetings, they can do the work quick and efficiently. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)--18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, cowboy is completely unorganized and as such requires more rework than the others you mention. I will never work for a cowboy shop. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
just tagged this with "not a worldwide view" because this it seems is how people in the usa use the term cowboy-something.
someone from the uk (for instance) who uses the term means "someone who produces dodgy work".
What is the analogy?
Is this an analogy? If so what characteristics do cowboys and cowboy coders have in common?
- Not an analogy.
- The three paragraphs in the lede explain it fairly well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This is the stupidest thing I've seen on the Internet in a long time, and that's saying something
Seriously? Wikipedia is going to benefit from an explanation of what 'Cowboy Coding' is?
Northeastern US residents sometimes use the term "Cowboy" derogatorily to mean reckless or irresponsible. Sticking the word "Cowboy" in front of the word "Coding" doesn't make it a software development philosophy. It just means the same thing as "Cowboy-anything" but applied to code. This article should be deleted. --GlenPeterson (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)