Cowboy coding: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:17, 7 August 2006

Revision as of 11:52, 7 August 2006

Line 1:

'''''Cowboy coding''' is a form of [[software development]] method without an actual defined method - team members do whatever they feel is right. Typical cowboy coding will involve no initial definition of the purpose or scope of the project, no formal description of the project, and will often involve one programmer. It is characterised by a single programmer jumping into the writing of the software often working from his own idea of what the software should do. It is also characterised by a lack of any documentation for either the requirements of the project or the design of the software overall.''

As with all methodologies, the skill and experience of the user(s) define the degree of success and/or abuse of such activity. Controls and/or checks and balances systematically imbedded within a process offer stronger levels of accountability of the user(s). It is the degradation of well intended procedures which leads to activities often defined as Cowboy coding.

Line 10 ⟶ 11:

* Lacks a clear scope and vision. The project sponsors will have no clear idea that their objectives have been communicated with the developer.

* Encourages a lack of visibility in the code. Poor coding can be hidden, as there is nobody to review it. This leads to developers who believe that as long as the code works it's good enough, and consequently it becomes difficult or impossible to maintain.

== * Only suitable for small projects. Projects that require a high degree of complexity will begin by showing fast progress, but then become bogged down as the developer finds adding more functionality to the codebase increasingly difficult.

*['''it is lack of availability of proper Technical procedures for implementation'''

==

==

== Only suitable for small projects. Projects that require a high degree of complexity will begin by showing fast progress, but then become bogged down as the developer finds adding more functionality to the codebase increasingly difficult.

* Poor quality software. With no [[code review]], [[pair programming]], [[unit testing]], release testing or other quality mechanism cowboy coding tends to produce buggy software.

* Doesn't scale well. If there is more than one programmer == == ==]]]] there needs to be some mechanism for them to organise the development. At this point even small teams will document and organise the project in some form.

* Lack of [[version control]]. Cowboy coding will often ignore other industry best practises, such as using a version control system. Since cowboy coders often work alone they see no point in the overhead of a version control system.