There is a fundamental problem with CoreXpDependencies
. It's like taking apart a frog to see how it works. You can learn something, but it kills the frog.
I strongly disagree. ExtremeProgramming is not mystical. It's about programming. If you can't explain why it works then you don't know if it's sheer luck, or a real solution! The basic problem is that CorrelationDoesNotImplyCausality. And, yes, a
lot of frogs have been killed by taking them apart over the past few millennia, but as a result we now know a heck of a lot about how frogs work!
But we still can't build a frog. And we know a lot about how XP works, too.
I don't think I said that XP is mystical. But it is a whole, and needs to be understood that way as well as in parts. There are many things in the world that I can't explain, yet they still work, and are still real.
And having experienced XP and written more words about it than any other living person, I can assure you with great confidence that there's more to it than deconstruction will ever find. I hope that one day you'll discover that truth for yourself. But don't get me wrong ... the analysis here is good. It's just not all
(I think you're misunderstanding my intent -- I certainly DO believe that XP works. However, I believe we can explain it, too...)
I don't think I'm misunderstanding. You think XP is able to be explained by examining its details. I believe there are things about frogs that we'll never learn from dissection. There are many things we will
learn ... but many that must be learned some other way.
I do not believe that XP works, convince me.
Try it. Convince yourself.
Is it just me, or do the XP Core Practices seem like a deck of MagicTheGathering
cards? You can't play UserStories
has been played; PairProgramming
doubles the effectiveness of any Refactoring, SimpleDesign
, or ContinuousIntegration
cards you've played....
has built an XP card game that isn't quite
that cool but is still pretty cool.