Many of the XP methods can find shadows during the current company's development process. After reading relevant information, you can get a lot of gains from it, and the following will list some of the key points I think it is very helpful.
In XP, each person emphasizes that each person has the right to revise, in this way, in the group, it has been acquired inside the team. In the group, the principle should be implemented in the group, encouraging each member to reasonably modify the code of the entire system, according to individual Experience, such modifications are generally advantageous, even if they lead to some small influence, they can generally be overcome.
Emphasized the use of time, in fact, repeatedly emphasized in the XP method, some normalized discussions and a large number of documents are a useless work, thinking about it, how much is we swallowed in such useless ? Of course, this principle is not advocating non-document, the generation of documents should be determined according to the specific environment. It is difficult to determine a fixed mode of document, and the role of documents is to solve the difference in information communication, for example, in order to Solving communication with users, it is necessary to provide a simple number of paper system descriptions, this is not unfold here.
In addition, XP emphasizes the simple principles throughout the development process, emphasizing "lightly load", so in our project, we must implement such ideas in our own thoughts, for a while to code, write comments, Design, test is effective, this is also a basic principle that is confirmed in XP: the code can pass all information, the work is the most direct work for the code, and the though think is to design it. Better code, the comment is to improve the readability of the code, the test is to improve the correctness of the code, all all this is work directly or indirectly, in practice, many people find that some are not practical Document repeated usage is quite low, so this principle is quite large to me, but also makes me focus on coding, design and testing, and can dispense some of my previous doubts: If you don't write Beautiful and standardized documents illustrate that our team's development efficiency is low, and it also shows that our product quality is not guaranteed, and it also shows that our company's competitiveness is low? For example, some key programming tasks are drawn for some time to prepare for a group member. In the process of writing code, another person uses paper, pen or other tools, or a person encoded, another person looks for Some relevant information, design test examples, etc., as for the standardization of test cases, the problem of designing documentation, etc., which can be reduced. In the XP, the respect of developers and some degree of liberalization. In fact, such thoughts are also characterized by software development industries. Software development is an intensive job, and the personal factors of developers have a considerable amount of software. The quality of the product, as far as possible to create a comfortable working environment according to the hobby of developers, it is also indirectly in the quality of software products, and there are also strict tests such as XP, and the management personnel can feel free of charge. And robust software products. I remember to read an article introduction. After Word, I found that the work efficiency was lowered, thinking that the user spend a lot of time in how to make a beautiful document. I personally think that the role of the document is a record of a certain agreement or conclusion, so that you can check and remind you at any time. For example, development specifications, demand analysis, etc. This and the author's "documentation is to solve differences in some information communication". There are a lot of things that we have no documentation as a record, which is the same if there is no document as a record. This is the same as the comments in the program. But whether the document must be strict, according to the procedure specification, you can work flexibly. Regularization discussion I think it is necessary, I understand the regularization discussion is a clear issue, and those who participate in the discussion should also have a prior understanding of the topic. It is necessary to have related documents after the conclusion. recording. The most important issue is that the normalization discussion can solve some important issues. General discussions, such as techniques, design, etc., can be performed at any time, but also record conclusions as appropriate. 2. "For a period of time, write annotations, design, and test are valid." I personally think this sentence is more suitable for use in the basic framework, just how the individual is only used. If the objective conditions permit, it is best to determine the entire structure, frame, etc., otherwise it is difficult to ensure that there will be problems while thinking. 3. "As for repeated emphasis on XP, I also punched the advantages that were reflected in it." The advantage of facing programming is to use two people to consider the same problem to minimize the blind spots of thinking. At the same time, two people can carry out multiple work after reaching the same question, "or a person encoding, another person looks for some related Information, design test examples, etc., actually shorten the development cycle by increasing personnel configuration. "In the process of writing code in one person, another person uses paper, pen or other tools to design and conceive." If two people can't reach a consensus and connect, the role of the programming will be greatly reduced.
4. "As for the standardization of test cases, the problem of designing documentation, etc., is actually quite time consuming, and it can be reduced by it," which I think it is necessary. If the system has a small complexity, how much time does it take to do these work. If the system complex is high, it is a dead road. But the results of these work are reflected in their actual utility, rather than formulating, standardized. The mastery of this requires rich experience. 5. "XP advocates the respect of developers and some degree of liberalization, in fact, such thoughts are also characterized by the software development industry." This view is or endorsed, but collaborative development must have a regulation system, otherwise the project will enter the chaotic state, which will not realize respect for developers. Welcome experience ~~!
