A commentary on the Extreme Programming development process

Christian Reis
Async Free Software, Inc.
São Carlos, Brazil


Extreme programming is a lightweight software development process focused on allowing and providing for continuous change throughout the life of a software product. This document makes a short statement of what Extreme Programming (XP) is, what could be interesting about it, and what shortcomings might appear if chosen to be implemented in a widespread fashion. This article also suggests that the adoption of key techniques that XP advocates could be used to good profit by any software development team, and in particular, within Free Software projects.


Extreme Programming (XP)[1] is a new and quite different approach to the software development process. The main idea is to iterate successively a process in which developers generate tests together with the customer, code what is necessary to run those tests, and integrate the product. You design and refactor as driven by need only, and never predicting future needs. There is little pre-analysis of the problem and no formal requirements specification. The combination of these factors is intended to bring a very flexible product into production in reduced time.

Coding is the one most important task the process considers, and most of the auxiliary subsystems a complete software process has are gone or executed during, or together with, the coding phase. Gone, for example, are the tasks of composing and maintaining requirements and implementation documentation.

This basic drive of putting the system into production as soon as possible and keeping software in `eternal evolutionary maintenance' echos quite strongly Eric Raymond's[3] ``Release early, release often'' motto for Free Software projects.1

The author of the method and book, Kent Beck, makes liberal use of informality in his first book on XP, but provides good background and backup for his theory. One interesting point about XP is that it's designed for small projects developed by up to 10 programmers, and most of it is designed to help get products out the door as soon as possible -- providing important feedback to customers and keeping developers motivated.

This contrasts heavily with common Software Engineering methodologies [2], which are usually quite cumbersome, focused on heavy amounts of documentation and that in general only adapt well to large-scale projects. Up to now, smaller companies had to rely on melting many different techniques into a software process that would scale well to their size and needs. XP is an attempt to provide a ready-to-use process for these companies.

The XP Process

My view of XP divides it into Exploration, Planning, and Development phases. The system goes from Pre-Release to Maintenance status after the first release, but these phases repeat themselves throughout with the same principles.


The Exploration phase starts off with business -- the customer -- writing stories that describe what the system needs to do, and developers actively trying out all the different technologies and the possible system configuration involved with the project.

The Exploration phase might be considered a parallel to Requirements Analysis, though very concise and incorporating a period of freedom for developers to experiment with the solutions they will be proposing and implementing.


As soon as stories have been collected, a Planning Game is conducted, and development estimates how long it will take for each of these stories to be produced. Business decides which of these are vital and should make the cut for a first release, and which ones can come later. The level of detail here is very coarse -- stories allow developers just enough information to make a good estimate of how long it would take to code the software.

I perceive these stories as being quite similar to use cases, where the customer explains how they think they would like to use the software produced, along with some basic background material to explain how things are tied together.

This phase can be considered a Forecasting and Estimating phase. It is intended to be quite short -- usually less than three days.


Development is conducted as a sequence of iterative cycles that concludes with a product release. There are usually a couple of cycles before production. At the beginning of each cycle a there is an Iteration Planning Game (IPG), which is finer-grained than the Planning Game and focused on the software to be produced. During the IPG customer stories are split into tasks and developers choose which tasks they would like to implement. Then, estimates are given by developers on the stories they've chosen. Each developer calculates his or her load, and some reallocation can be done to balance out this load.

The next step is actually producing some of the software that will fit to the stories. Every software piece is test-driven; before you write the code you write a series of tests that should run if the software does what it should do. One of the more controversial points to XP is that software is to be programmed in pairs - two people to one computer. Regression tests are run all the time to guarantee nothing is being broken.

My understanding is that the pieces of software might not be directly connected to a story during the initial cycles, primarily because the infrastructure and communication architecture have to be created. In later stages, however, most software will be directly linked to a story, and the tests can run exactly as the story would specify a use case.

Once the stories targeted for the cycle end, the developers regroup and another IPG is conducted. At this time the customer can sign the completed stories and provide suggestions for the next cycle.

At the end of Development, a version of the product is released to the customer and put into production. Only during the last weeks before release should performance tuning be done. Once the software has entered production, a new Exploration phase should start, and new features -- or features held off from the first release -- are to be considered.

Development concentrates Design, Coding, Testing and Release phases -- this is very much in accord to the `Coding is Everything' feeling XP has to it.

Implementation Details

Integration is done periodically with very short intervals: all components that make up the system should be assembled in a separate server and integration tests are run on it. This tends to make releases easier, since integration and packaging are being done all the time. Integration tests that fail are to be serviced immediately and are an overriding issue that preempts all work done by the team.

Since regression and integration testing are frequent, any developer that wishes to alter any part of the software is free to do so; he or she needs only to guarantee the software hasn't broken.

The philosophy that guides change and enhancement is `Do only what needs to be done to allow the task immediately at hand to be solved elegantly'. This means that no provisions for predicted need or features are encouraged -- problems should be solved as they come. Design is reduced to decisions made upon reaching a new task or fixing something proven wrong through testing. As soon as you reach a problem that can only be fixed by changing something, you can refactor it, making sure the tests still run.

Positive Points of XP

I understand XP is targeted at projects where customers don't know exactly how to proceed at the beginning and are likely to change their mind -- software is produced quickly and development receives feedback early in the development projects, so little planning is actually wasted. If a project is done in-house and requirements changing is seen as a constant reality, it seems very adequate.

This shortened release cycle is one of the primary strengths of XP. This is indeed very positive: customers see what they paid for early, even though incomplete, and developers stay more interested and on track. More freedom for developers to choose tasks and to fix problems are definitely additional important motivators.

Without becoming religious, I agree with the Worse is Better2[5] mentality that Kent shows throughout the book - simplicity should be paramount and keeping the system simple but functional is the most important consideration to be kept when scaling and changing. Since XP pushes to be early and always in maintenance, you could say it is always scaling.

I see continuous integration as a very interesting idea for developing a project. The idea that in short cycles everything is tested and packaged makes progress comfortably visible and keeps developers enthusiastic about the task at hand.

Worth noting is the fact that XP goes directly against Cleanroom [6] development, where testing is always done by other team members and developers are not allowed to execute their own code. Cleanroom has been defended in several places[7][6] [8], but has at times seemed awkward to implement and enforce, specially with geographically disperse teams.

Kent's arguments for extensive testing and integrating, and not separating developer's tasks, are quite reasonable. Keeping delivery simplified by always readying the product for release sounds good, as does letting developers see the whole product.

Possible Problems with XP

The one major implementation problem I see with XP is that it is a difficult model to use when selling services to other companies, since they either expect explicit requirements to be produced or at least want a fixed price and time produced on day 0. Convincing customers to forego these key pieces of information will be hard. I have chosen not to discuss this in this document: the considerations that I list out here are all technical, and have nothing to do with sales and marketing.

XP has a tendency to attempt to convince through shock. It denies many practices that have been tried for decades, some of them in my experience good ideas. Just because Software Development in general has problems shouldn't mean that everything being done up to now isn't right.

Problem Analysis, for example, is never mentioned as something to be done. Clients must have a good idea of the 'stories' they need to tell at first. This could be easily countered with an Analyst's help up front, before beginning XP, but it isn't mentioned as so during the length of the book. The intent on iterating the process of composing stories can be tiresome, since it occurs even before the first time estimates are delivered.

Along the same lines are the problems the lack of a more specific requirements engineering phase invites. As I see it, requirements aren't a plot to plaster developers, but a phase during which the problem is mulled over continuously and refined -- until a decent, simple solution is decided upon. Thinking about the problem is necessary -- specially because finding out what problem is to be solved and how to solve it is hard [9], and should be hard. Furthermore, by not spending a significant portion of time thinking before starting, a chance to plan properly to avoid refactoring are wasted.

This is not to say excessive time should be spent on requirements, and the subsequent design, specially since they will inevitably change; however, a good idea of the overall problem to be solved and a good agreed-upon path to the solution are always good head starts.

XP seems to be adequate for fast-paced projects during their development. When the development process matures and less functionality is requested than would be necessary to keep XP burning, there is no provision for reduced maintenance. It seems projects that develop slowly would not be properly tackled by XP.

The point described above may not be obvious, so I'll elaborate: little or no documentation means the code and the people must be trusted with knowledge of the project. Unfortunately, this isn't always a reliable bet: it is common for some developers to quit a project (and this is covered in XP), but occasionally all - or most developers quit. With no one around to explain what the code means, the barrier of entry to a new developer will be high. Documentation, if properly maintained -- informal, if culturally possible, but existent -- can help reduce this problem. Keeping it in sync is, of course, a problem, one that XP claims to avoid.

XP is very trusting on the possibility of refactoring and retrofitting existing code to extended functionality. This may be the case if all changes are simple, but many of us have encountered significant problems during code adaptation and extension, sometimes even with simple changes. This is mainly because `simple' is a perceived value, and not an objective one, when the matter is software development. Small changes can impact seriously, and proper pre-coding planning could help solve this.

Regarding testing, if a large part of the project requires implementing a user interface, it may be a problem for developers to create automated tests. Studies show that usually 50% of all code is dedicated to user interfaces [10]. Obviously, tests can be handled manually, albeit cumbersomely. This problem does exist in any User Interface testing environment [11]. However, XP relies on testing to drive development; problematic testing can mean slow (or problematic) development.

Finally, it seems that developers are trusted to be smart and willing. You could argue that anyone not smart or willing shouldn't be working at all, but every once in a while a developer will go through a bad phase or won't want to do a task at hand. In a group, this can occur quite commonly. A provision could be made -- voting, or a fallback rule -- for tasks identified that no one wants, or that are being executed poorly. This may come in conflict with the ideals of free choice and ownership that XP suggests.

Comparison to Free Software Development

As I've stated before, the early and frequent releases echoes the `Open Source' development mentality. Since Free Software is in constant evolution and maintenance (mainly because software isn't attached to a strict schedule or requisite definition), many of the techniques used by XP could be (and many times, are) adopted by projects.

As an example of constant integration, the Mozilla project comes to mind, where nightly integration is done. Every night builds of the current code base can be downloaded and tested by anyone who so desires. They have an automated bug-tracking system where users can submit bugs online, and tools for monitoring the build tree's status in real time.

An interesting part of XP -- test-driven development -- could be exploited in a very interesting way in many Free Software projects. It remains to be seen as to how successful one would be in enforcing testing since the codebase is replicated and changed by all developers (and downloaders).

Ownership of the code in Free Software projects is somewhat less flexible, with the project lead decide what submissions go in or not. It is important to note, however, that this has good analogy with XP tasks, which are feature increments or enhancements. Tasks have an "owner", which is who implements them and knows their impact best. Bug-fixes are usually accepted without much discussion in Free Software; this is in accord to the XP philosophy ``anyone may fix broken code''.

Ownership is a very motivating experience. Having a developer's name attached to a piece of software and having it publicly visible is one of the highly unperceived but very important characteristics that interest and attract developers to Free Software. XP could explore this to a better extent.

Since there is little formal, specific, planning, and most software isn't produced for third parties' use, there isn't anything similar to the Planning Game in the Free Software world. The Iteration Planning Game (IPG) doesn't have a proper parallel either. The iterations through major versions of Free Software projects3 in my opinion are too long to be considered example of Development iterations.

Refactoring and design are quite similar to the process described (`evangelized') in XP: refactor and design on demand. This is probably due to the fact it is the only way to maintain systems that are already in production and running: large changes that break everything wouldn't be convenient at all. Not designing up-front, however, is -- in my opinion -- a problem, both with XP and with current Free Software practices.

The lack of real documentation (apart from the code, which could be argued is the only `real' documentation) is quite similar, and it can be pointed out that the real problems with it are the same: when a project dies, and programmers stop working on it, it is difficult to work on it again. Nobody knows or cares about how it works anymore. Documentation that exists to provide an accelerated path to comprehension is a dire necessity, in my opinion. This does not mean bureaucracy.

There is no parallel in the non-free world with the ``Right to Fork''4, so it of course isn't covered in XP.

Finally, and obviously, programming in pairs couldn't be properly enforced with people developing constantly separated.


The book is quite interesting. It does exaggerate at times towards breaking current practices, but it gives good explanations on why it does so. In the Software Engineering field, in practice very bureaucratic and systematic, it's a refreshing look into how simplicity and common sense can bring advantages to small teams developing constantly changing requirements.

I find it very interesting that XP is focused on small teams; usually a software engineering process invites so much overhead that any small company doesn't even consider it.

The constant integration practices can be implemented easily and would be to great avail to any business; free software projects with rapid development speed should implement automated integration.

Some of the more controversial points -- programming in pairs comes to mind -- can be hard to accept. For these, I'd suggest forgoing the author's ``Anything but Everything is Not Extreme Programming'' attitude and adopting what feels right for you.

I would definitely not recommend avoiding Problem Analysis and Requisites Specification, no matter what XP would suggest. If your focus is on simplified and informal documents, fine; just make sure they exist. It is too easy to fall into the no-planning trap, and I trust not in pure refactoring and developer expertise to keep a system from becoming a mess.


Kent Beck. "Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change", Addison-Wesley Longman, Reading, Masachusetts, 1999.

Roger S. Pressman. "Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach", Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1997.

Eric S. Raymond. "The Cathedral and The Bazaar", http://www.tuxedo.org/ esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/, 1999.

The Mozilla Project. "Nightly Builds", http://www.mozilla.org/binaries.html and http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/, 2000.

Richard Gabriel [rpg@lucid.com]. "The Rise of ``Worse is Better''" in "Lisp: Good News, Bad News, How to Win Big", http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html, 1993.

Richard Selby et al. "Cleanroom Software Development: An Empirical Evaluation", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-13, 9, September 1987.

Michael Dyer. "The Cleanroom Approach to Quality Software Development", John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1992.

Tom DeMarco. "Software Development: State of the Art vs. State of the Practice", "Why does Software Cost so much?", Dorset House, 1995.

Alan M. Davis. "Object-Oriented Requirements to Object-Oriented Design: An Easy Transition?", The Journal of Systems Software 30, (1995) pp. 151-159.

Brad A Myers and Mary Beth Rosson. "Survey on User Interface Programming", Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 195-292, Proceedings of SIGCHI'92, Monterey, CA, 1992.

Brad A. Myers. "Why are Human-Computer Interfaces Difficult to Design and Implement?", July, 1993.

Christian Reis 2000-08-15