[jrockway]

> I share his suspicion of most XP techniques.

Well, he is suspicious because he assumes people using XP are programmers. That's not correct.

The idea behind XP is to get somewhat usable code out of non-programmers. Why companies don't just fire people that can't program, I'll never know... but XP does seem to work. Instead of getting unmaintainable, untested, half-working garbage, you get unmaintainable, tested, two-thirds working garbage.

Oh yeah, now I remember why these programmers exist. Companies seem to value quantity over quality of programmers. That way people can be sick or go on vacation and you'll still get your two-thirds-working code. BRILLANT!

[SwellJoe]

I'm not sure I buy this logic either. Programming is right in the name, and some proponents of XP are good programmers. And, I really don't see how horrible programmers would be made better by poor techniques (which I believe some aspects of XP are).

[jrockway]

XP makes programming less like a creative art and more like checking off items on a to do list. You can't teach art, but you can sort of get people to do stuff on a list. Hence XP.