Hi! I'm new to XP, but what I understand you should NOT design or code anything more then the absolute necessary things. I.e. no generall code or design. Is that really right or have I missunderstod something? I mean, if you right now need something that handle only static data, but you know that later on you want it to be able to change/edit that data, should we then design/prepare for that? If we don't then we probably have to redo all of it since a simple static solution often have little in common with a changeable one. /Andreas
This is one of the big arguments about XP, and the C2 wiki has rattled and clanged with this topic many times. The XP premise is that customers would always rather have a system which does some of what they DO want, NOW, than one which does what they MIGHT want, TOMORROW. The "might" is the key point here. Even the very best futurologists will only ever be partly right - imagine a situation where the customer needs the "simple static solution" today, but after using it for a while, decides that that part of their buiness process is redundant. The extra facility you "know" they will need just never happens. The spectre of chainging existing code is no big deal, in an XP project all the code is subject to continual refactoring anyway. Believe me, when you get used to this it really is liberating. I am called in to work on so much over-engineered software these days where people whave repeatedly built in the wrong sort of flexibility at the expense of being able to add changes that the customer desparately needs. A combination of refactoring and simplifying the assumed problem usually results in dramatic size, maintainance, productivity and performance improvements.
author of:<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201485672/electricporkchop" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Refactoring : Improving the Design of Existing Code</a><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/020165783X/electricporkchop" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">UML Distilled, Second Edition: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language</a><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201895420/electricporkchop" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Analysis Patterns : Reusable Object Models</a><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201710919/electricporkchop" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Planning Extreme Programming</a>
posted 18 years ago
Thank you for your replies. In our next project we will try the XP-paradigm. I guess it will feel a bit awkward in the beginning but hopefully it will result in a nice improvement of our developement methods. Best regards Andreas
A wop bop a lu bob a womp bam boom. Tutti frutti ad:
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koop