Cowboy coding: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:06, 15 March 2007

Revision as of 03:55, 27 May 2007

Line 4:

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 embedded within a process offer stronger levels of accountability of the user(s).

Both lightweight and heavy weighted methodologies of today still lead to this breakdown as the user(s) attempts to operate within social/political environments within organizations. The probability of this breakdown can be directly correlated to the degree of processes inhibiting the user(s) from deviating from the organization standard, however at the potential cost of efficiency.

'''Advantages:'''

Line 23:

'''Other Software Development Methods that are commonly confused with Cowboy coding:'''

Cowboy coding, often used as a derogatory term, has been confused with other software development methodologies which have solved the issues surrounding cowboy coding. [[Extreme Programming]] for example also does not emphasise documentation. However [[Extreme Programming]] does use methods to document user requirements and guide the software development team. It also addresses code quality through unit tests and peer review, and is thus quite different.

[[agile software development|Agile development]]'s frequent reevaluation of plans, emphasis on face-to-face communication, and relatively sparse use of documents sometimes cause people to confuse it with cowboy coding. Agile teams, however, do follow defined (and often very disciplined and rigorous) processes, something that distinguishes agile approaches from cowboy coding.

[[Category:Software development philosophies]]