I think that XP was the only true agile methodology. Agile just got more and more corrupted over the years through stupidity.
Clearly AI programming allows you to quickly close feedback loops. I don't think everything needs a comprehensive set of unit tests though.
But if people can go back and understand the core concept of XP (which again is about feedback loops to me) and take advantage of LLM-based agent systems to create those tight closed feedback loops, then that will be an advance for software engineering.
viraptor · 3m ago
> I don't think everything needs a comprehensive set of unit tests though.
There's a difference in the tests of that era though. Around the xp times, unit tests were for unit of functionality, not per-method.
jadbox · 8m ago
I think the ideal scenario is usually two paired programmer using a shared set of AI agents on the same working branch together. It's an ideal feedback loop of paired planning, reviewing, building, and testing.
AnimalMuppet · 7m ago
Depends on how accurately AI can close the loops.
CuriouslyC · 5m ago
Waterfall is the thing that's coming back with AI.
mattmanser · 56m ago
I'd totally forgotten about XP.
Funny how some of it is now day-to-day, and other parts of it would be considered extremely weird.
imjacobclark · 39m ago
Yeah, much of XP has just been integrated into modern workflows (for the better!), really getting this out there as a call to arms for folks to _think_ before they churn out 1000s of lines of code with an LLM and ship without thought!
From your perspective, which bits of XP would you consider weird?
bgwalter · 1h ago
Certainly someone is willing to sell Extreme Vibing (XV) courses.
parpfish · 26m ago
that’s what onlyfans is predicated on
AnimalMuppet · 1h ago
Just in case: This is not a call for everyone to "pair program" with an AI.
If you pair program with someone else on your team, you both learn what the other is thinking. You both become more familiar with what the code is doing, and why it's doing it.
If you "pair program" with an AI, anything it learned, it forgets as soon as the prompt is closed.
So don't think that's what he's talking about here. He's talking about XP, with humans, just like in the 1990s. There may be some AI in there too, but that's not where the XP part comes from.
viraptor · 24s ago
That's only if you don't preserve the results explicitly. If you're trying to delve into some new code without enough docs, I could imagine learning lots about the system along the LLM and then leaving that as documentation and/or agent files in the repo.
imjacobclark · 38m ago
100%
jongjong · 36m ago
Extreme Programming attempts to weave together several independently useful concepts into a single paradigm... For that to make sense, the amalgamation of ideas has to be greater than the sum of its parts individually, but it's not clear that this is the case.
TDD is useful in some situations, yep totally. Pair programming is useful in some situations, yes. Continuous integration; yes, much of the time. Frequent feedback; yes, sometimes, for some types of work which doesn't require deep focus...
It just doesn't work as a blanket 'XP' paradigm because you rarely need all these parts all the time, at the same time. IMO, this is why Extreme Programming lacks gumption as a concept. It feels like a bunch of good ideas thrown together. If there was some kind of synergy between those ideas and practices, the concept of XP would be more important.
As it stands today, everyone is implementing maybe 1 or 2 aspects of XP, but almost nobody is implementing ALL of XP... So nobody can claim that they're adhering to XP.
This is not the same as as 'Agile' because with Agile; the vast majority of big companies are implementing maybe 90% of agile practices, with 70% fidelity... This consistency is enough for companies to identify themselves as 'Agile'. I've worked for many companies which implemented ALL of the Agile practices but not one of them actually implemented them exactly as taught in the Agile Manifesto. I think the closest one I worked for was maybe 90% of the way there; they even followed the story point system exactly and used a packet of cards with numbers on them to allow people to vote during Sprint Planning meetings... but anyway, pretty much all the companies/projects I worked for identified themselves 'Agile' because all the practices fit into a single paradigm and there was value in adopting all of them. After a while, it became easier for project managers to just say "Let's switch to Agile" instead of saying "Let's time-box our development work into short increments, with a planning meeting, refinement meeting and retrospective meeting for each 2-week increment."
imjacobclark · 31m ago
Agreed, we’ve come a long way since the dogmatic agile of the 90s, and maybe I could be more explicit that this is about introspecting how you’re delivering software (now AI-enabled workflows are everywhere) to decrease the probability of only increasing output (rather than increasing the probability of outcomes) for your users… XP is a good place to start (but not necessarily end).
loloquwowndueo · 44m ago
No. (Betteridge’s Law dictates so)
andyjohnson0 · 38m ago
> No. (Betteridge’s Law dictates so)
Maybe. But its not a law. Its a vague heuristic. Thought is still required.
Clearly AI programming allows you to quickly close feedback loops. I don't think everything needs a comprehensive set of unit tests though.
But if people can go back and understand the core concept of XP (which again is about feedback loops to me) and take advantage of LLM-based agent systems to create those tight closed feedback loops, then that will be an advance for software engineering.
There's a difference in the tests of that era though. Around the xp times, unit tests were for unit of functionality, not per-method.
Funny how some of it is now day-to-day, and other parts of it would be considered extremely weird.
From your perspective, which bits of XP would you consider weird?
If you pair program with someone else on your team, you both learn what the other is thinking. You both become more familiar with what the code is doing, and why it's doing it.
If you "pair program" with an AI, anything it learned, it forgets as soon as the prompt is closed.
So don't think that's what he's talking about here. He's talking about XP, with humans, just like in the 1990s. There may be some AI in there too, but that's not where the XP part comes from.
TDD is useful in some situations, yep totally. Pair programming is useful in some situations, yes. Continuous integration; yes, much of the time. Frequent feedback; yes, sometimes, for some types of work which doesn't require deep focus...
It just doesn't work as a blanket 'XP' paradigm because you rarely need all these parts all the time, at the same time. IMO, this is why Extreme Programming lacks gumption as a concept. It feels like a bunch of good ideas thrown together. If there was some kind of synergy between those ideas and practices, the concept of XP would be more important.
As it stands today, everyone is implementing maybe 1 or 2 aspects of XP, but almost nobody is implementing ALL of XP... So nobody can claim that they're adhering to XP.
This is not the same as as 'Agile' because with Agile; the vast majority of big companies are implementing maybe 90% of agile practices, with 70% fidelity... This consistency is enough for companies to identify themselves as 'Agile'. I've worked for many companies which implemented ALL of the Agile practices but not one of them actually implemented them exactly as taught in the Agile Manifesto. I think the closest one I worked for was maybe 90% of the way there; they even followed the story point system exactly and used a packet of cards with numbers on them to allow people to vote during Sprint Planning meetings... but anyway, pretty much all the companies/projects I worked for identified themselves 'Agile' because all the practices fit into a single paradigm and there was value in adopting all of them. After a while, it became easier for project managers to just say "Let's switch to Agile" instead of saying "Let's time-box our development work into short increments, with a planning meeting, refinement meeting and retrospective meeting for each 2-week increment."
Maybe. But its not a law. Its a vague heuristic. Thought is still required.