Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Changewriting

extreme-programmingkent-beckxpmethodologytechnical-practices
1999-10-01 · 1 min read · Edit on Pyrite

The founding text of extreme-programming, published in 1999 by kent-beck — two years before the agile-manifesto. This first edition laid out XP as a "non-negotiable set of rules": either you did all of it or you weren't doing XP. kent-beck described it as a methodology for small teams developing software under changing requirements, with a specific list of practices that had to be adopted together because they supported one another.

Core structure (first edition)

The first edition organized XP around four values — communication, simplicity, feedback, courage — and approximately twelve to fifteen practices, presented as an integrated whole. Key practices included:

  • test-driven-development (write tests before code)
  • pair-programming (all production code written by two people)
  • continuous-integration (integrate and test several times a day)
  • refactoring (continuously improve the design)
  • collective-code-ownership (anyone can change any code)
  • The planning game (negotiate scope with customers)
  • Small releases
  • Metaphor (a system metaphor to guide development)
  • Simple design
  • sustainable-pace (40-hour week — "no overtime")
  • On-site customer
  • The "non-negotiable" stance was deliberate. kent-beck argued that the practices formed a system: if you removed the on-site customer, the planning game broke down; if you removed collective ownership, refactoring became politically difficult. The first edition presented this as all-or-nothing by design.

    Relationship to the manifesto

    The first edition predates snowbird-meeting-2001 by two years. XP was the most elaborated of the lightweight methodologies at the time, and kent-beck's book was the primary reason XP proponents had a large presence at Snowbird. The manifesto's values — particularly individuals-and-interactions and working-software — reflect XP's emphasis directly.

    Reception

    The first edition was widely read and widely controversial. Critics argued XP was too prescriptive and made unrealistic demands (on-site customer; 40-hour weeks). Practitioners found it energizing precisely because it was prescriptive — unlike heavyweight methodologies, at least you knew what you were supposed to do.

    The second edition (xp-explained-second-edition, 2004) significantly revised the approach, making it less prescriptive and expanding scope to larger teams.