ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Recognizing and responding to "bad smells" in extreme programming
Full text PdfPdf (637 KB)
Source International Conference on Software Engineering archive
Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering table of contents
Orlando, Florida
SESSION: Industry track papers and presentations: technology trends table of contents
Pages: 617 - 622  
Year of Publication: 2002
ISBN:1-58113-472-X
Authors
Amr Elssamadisy  ThoughtWorks, Inc., Chicago, IL
Gregory Schalliol  ThoughtWorks, Inc., Chicago, IL
Sponsors
IEEE-CS\DATC : IEEE Computer Society
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 22,   Downloads (12 Months): 111,   Citation Count: 10
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/581339.581418
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The agile software development process called Extreme Programming (XP) is a set of best practices which, when used, promises swifter delivery of quality software than one finds with more traditional methodologies. In this paper, we describe a large software development project that used a modified XP approach, identifying several unproductive practices that we detected over its two-year life that threatened the swifter project completion we had grown to expect. We have identified areas of trouble in the entire life cycle, including analysis, design, development, and testing. For each practice we identify, we discuss the solution we implemented to correct it and, more importantly, examine the early symptoms of those poor practices ("bad smells") that project managers, analysts, and developers need to look out for in order to keep an XP project on its swifter track.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Fowler, M. Refactoring (Reading, MA, 1999), Addison-Wesley, Chap. 3.
 
2
 
3
Wiki Discussion, Cost Of Design Carry, http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?CostOfDesignCarry
 
4
Wiki Discussion, Do The Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work, http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?DoTheSimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyWork
 
5
Deursen, A., Moonen, L., Bergh, L., and Kok, G. Refactoring Test Code, http://www.xp2001.org/xp2001/conference/papers/Chapter22-vanDeursen+alii.pdf
 
6
Mackinnon, T. Freeman, S., and Craig P. Endo-Testing: Unit Testing With Mock Objects http://www.connextra.com/about/mockobjects.pdf.
 
7
Schuh, P., and Punke, S. ObjectMother: Easing Test Object Creation In XP, http://www.xpuniverse.com/Testing03.pdf.

CITED BY  10

Collaborative Colleagues:
Amr Elssamadisy: colleagues
Gregory Schalliol: colleagues