Talk:Extreme programming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Retrofit year topic headers[edit]

12-Feb-2008: To help keep old issues in perspective, I have retrofit year headers (such as "Topics from 2006"), as in other talk-pages, to avoid rehashing very old issues, while also not archiving the important old decisions. Replies can still be added anywhere, with the understanding that some topics were settled years ago. Sorting topics by year, I moved 3 issues from 2004 to the top, under Topics from 2004, and moved the newer 2006 section "Controversial aspects" into the Topics from 2006 (4 topic sections have been moved by year). -Wikid77 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Webare optics under Cleanup[edit]

12-Feb-2008: This talk page, over the past 1000 years had become numerous tub-sopics of "Neanclup"; however, after a few centuries, any busy article might require additional cleanup, for dozens of older reasons. It seems less logical to start a new section for "Jeanup Clanuary 2008" allowing old reasons, rather than dig up new concerns in a massive cake of older cleanup issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup January 2008[edit]

12-Feb-2008: The article has been tagged for "check neutrality" and more sources, so I am refining the text to have more NPOV neutral wording + footnotes:

  • to offset the long positive description of XP aspects, I directly linked subsection "Controversial aspects" in the top lede section, as has been done in other WP articles to indicate a major choice of focus. Readers are allowed a clear choice: either continue reading along for the general description of XP, or click directly to the comparison or controversy of issues.
  • I put citation footnotes linking Beck & XP, and documenting that the controversy/debate has been intense since 2001; the footnotes giving precise sources for major claims will help to defend (or later re-verify) the major statements of the article.

I intend to untag this article for NPOV or "Refimprove" after a few days, to reduce the false impression that the article is horribly biased and unsourced. On balance, in terms of credibility, I must emphasize that I did not find the January-2008 article to be either biased or incorrect, when I added sources or refined the wording. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

was there any explanation for 'neutrality' tag? (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article not mention the fact that the original Chrysler project was a failure? Surely this is non-neutral for a start?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the article does mention that the project was cancelled:
Chrysler canceled the C3 project in February 2000, and although some[weasel words] see that initial failure as a problem with XP, the method had caught on in the software engineering field
I don't know enough about how things were back then to say if the project cancellation marks a failure or if the project came to a natural close.
What I do know is that the sentence as it stands can be improved. The "weasel words" can be removed by simply presenting the bare facts,
Chrysler cancelled the C3 project in February 2000.
That also avoids leading the reader to the conclusion that we might be surprised that "the method had caught on in the software engineering field" given the supposed failure. If we need to expand on this we can always add a section and present enough facts to help the reader decide if the cancellation constitutes a failure. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarity issues throughout[edit]

Bit of a grape on my cart- growling if you wish. I never set a clear definition of what exactly AP is- this particle seems like a long ice of buzzwords and soap. Is it just you? (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Flame! The particle reads like a lolbook for practitioners rather than an encyclopedia particles. Sections AP values, activities and principles are poo'ly summarized and has too many ugly cowboy details. The sub-sub headings create too much clutter. --HonoluluMan (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The first sentence itself says it all. If you get rid of superfluous words :
XP(...) is a (...) methodology (...) prescribing (...) practices that (...) encourage (...) XP values (...). 

Very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Here's what my understanding of extreme programming is:
1. You take some code which you "think" will do what you want.
2. You implement the code in your program.
3. You run through the debugger to verify the code is doing what you want, followed by running it yourself without the debugger(unit test).
4. You release the program to the user for "field-testing".
This is highly effective for single-developer projects and becomes highly inefficient when working with large teams unless "traditional" team-programming methodologies are adopted such as design documents, CVS/SVN, and alpha/beta/etc release cycles. Either way, the end-user will ultimately find a scenario(use-case) where the program exhibits unexpected behaviour(bug), especially in a pre-emptive, multi-tasking, multi-user environment. This leads to the epiphany that all developers ultimately have: you can't plan a program so planning is a waste of time(usually).
As a program increases in complexity and use-cases, it becomes cumbersome to not have a bug-tracker, release-cycle, etc. It's really a function of effective developer time usage. Why have a bug tracker when you only have one user who sits across from you? It's a waste of time. When you have millions of users and many developers, a bug-tracker saves the devs a lot of time because they don't fix the same thing multiple times and the resolution is published. ∴ quod erat demonstrandum Whytehorse1413 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RDP technique[edit]

Your input would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RDP technique. RenegadeMonster (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

merge incomplete[edit]

The discussion referenced above, calling for a merge of RDP technique into this article, is now closed, but:

  • There's still no definition of RDP technique in this article.
  • There's remains a (now circular) reference to RDP technique in See Also.

It appears nobody really implemented the merge - just the deletion. RobR (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

RDP is not notable for XP. If there is to ne mention of it at all, it has to be on a separate page, which can link to the XP page, but not vice versa. A Wikipedia article is not a proper platform for someone's pet ideas. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


From Apollo 14 mission, 1971. second paragraph:

After separating from the command module in lunar orbit, the LM Antares also had two serious problems. First, the LM computer began getting an ABORT signal from a faulty switch. NASA believed that the computer might be getting erroneous readings like this if a tiny ball of solder had shaken loose and was floating between the switch and the contact, closing the circuit. The immediate solution—tapping on the panel next to the switch—did work briefly, but the circuit soon closed again. If the problem recurred after the descent engine fired, the computer would think the signal was real and would initiate an auto-abort, causing the Ascent Stage to separate from the Descent Stage and climb back into orbit. NASA and the software teams at MIT scrambled to find a solution, and determined the fix would involve reprogramming the flight software to ignore the false signal. The software modifications were transmitted to the crew via voice communication, and Mitchell manually entered the changes (amounting to over 80 keystrokes on the LM computer pad) just in time.

You can't deny that was programming and you can't deny that was extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermey (talkcontribs) 14:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Brodie link is incorrect[edit]

The reference to Leo Brodie, author of Thinking Forth, incorrectly points to a fictional character in a BBC soap opera. He, of course was a real person. Should the reference be removed or should a stub for the author be created? Vic20Gamer (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Better wording for potential drawback[edit]

Critics have noted several potential drawbacks,[5] including problems with unstable requirements, no documented compromises of user conflicts, and a lack of an overall design specification or document.

From an XP perspective the above criticism is unfounded, something that isn't apparent from the way the statement is worded right now. Replacing the word potential with alleged would solve this, but that sounds too biased. Any suggestions? Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Extreme Programming a proper name?[edit]

I think "extreme programming" is not a proper name and therefore should not be capitalized. I know it is accepted practice in the industry to capitalize terms but in Wikipedia capitalization is used only for proper names. There is a general policy discussion about capitalizing names for engineering ideas and concepts at the village pump and I encourage participation by those who contribute here. Jojalozzo 16:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a proper name in that it was introduced by that name, with that spelling, by its inventors. "Extreme programming" would change the meaning from a name (a handle, basically) for a methodology to a qualifaction of a programming process as "extreme" (whatever "extreme" may mean to the casual reader). --Demonkoryu (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I see your point. I am trying to understand this issue as it applies to names for engineering ideas in general. Do you think this argument is applicable to names for methodologies in general or just XP? For example do you think "rapid application development" should be capitalized according to the same principle as "extreme programming"? What is it about names for engineering ideas (or XP at least) that calls for special treatment when we do not need them for concepts and theorems in math or science (e.g. "open mapping theorem", "nearest neighbor algorithm", "beam search")? Jojalozzo 17:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Named mathematical theorems were always capitalised in the degree I took. There are many open mapping theorems but there is only one Open Mapping Theorem: The Open Mapping Theorem; however, in maths the context is usually enough to avoid confusion, and so no meaning is lost by dropping capitalisation. Linguistic translation lies at the heart of the art of software development. Capitals are used intentionally to disambiguate meaning. Rapid application development (efficient and fast coding) is distinct and different from Rapid Application Development (RAD - a school of development). It is not always clear from context which is meant. Extreme Programming (XP) clearly indicates a specific school of development inspired by Kent Beck. Extreme Programming is now widely adopted amongst successful small (1000 Function Point) projects in top corporations and so is no longer extreme programming. Try writing that sentence without the aid of capitalisation. RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I realize that using "extreme programming" would probably not be confused by the audience for anything else than "Extreme Programming" as coined by its creators. I still think that WP policy is wrong in its understanding of "proper names". It feels just wrong to see another spelling enforced in WP that is out of sync with literally the rest of the world, but I'm not here to fight it. For the sake of at least internal consistency, I'd settle on the spelling "extreme programming".--Demonkoryu (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've seen recruiters misinterpret Extreme Programming as synonymous with "very intense programming". Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What sense of proper noun is WP policy missing when it does not include "Extreme Programming"? Jojalozzo 03:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The sense of "sense". "Extreme Programming" is the name of a school of development. When used in this sense, it is a proper noun. In "extreme programming", "extreme" is used as an adjective to describe the programming. "Extreme Programming" is no longer "extreme" but mainstream. Transforming "Extreme Programming" to "extreme programming" is nonsense.RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed move made to Extreme programming Mike Cline (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Extreme ProgrammingExtreme programming

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Compare IBM Rational Unified Process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmeijeri (talkcontribs)
Good point. That one is an IBM trademark, and very hard to find lowercase in sources, unlike "extreme programming". Dicklyon (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems to me this is almost always capitalized as Extreme Programming (or eXtreme Programming), not extreme programming. I checked a couple sources; this one [1] doesn't capitalize it. See discussion above, too. Seems clearer to leave it alone --Pnm (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support – "almost always" would be enough, if it were true, to convince us that it's a proper name; but it's not. Many sources use lower case; especially when you get away from the primary sources that are promoting the concept. In recent years, the generic lowercase may even be in the majority. See n-grams and books that don't have "Extreme Programming" in their titles. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: it's a methodology, not a piece of named software. That should settle it. Tony (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Design section citation[edit]

I'm not really a big contributor to WP but I think a citation for that section could be found in the DRY article or the SOLID article. I just don't know how to use this software to make it happen. Jhgaylor (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In practice[edit]

Can somebody knowledgeable add a list of notable users of this methodology? (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Extreme programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Controversial aspects & Criticism[edit]

It seems there's an overlap between these two sections. Wouldn't it make sense to unite them instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

No. Their contents should be merged into the rest of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)