Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsder | Hacker News Reader

C3 was, by any measure, an abject failure. It got only the very basics working and then died when it ran into the vast number of unspecified exceptional cases (gee, where have we heard that before ...) that needed to be handled. And then got cancelled and completely reverted.

To then use such a failure as a marquee project demonstrating the supposed "superiority" of XP is unabashed chutzpah.

Now, large IT projects generally fail. So, XP is not wholly to blame.

However, the proponents of XP pushed it as superior silver bullet to navigate both the political and technical waters of software projects. The fact that C3 was such a spectacular failure simply demonstrates that XP really wasn't any different than any other methodology being pushed by people with an agenda.

View on HN

I was trying not to make any judgement call, but I agree.

To me there are worse things in the story, though: they tried to make User Stories and even customer-driven tests and ended up burning out the only customer that was able to do it.

It's not only underwhelming compared to the silver bullet they were selling in conferences and books, but it required some unicorn customer that they couldn't replace.

For years I saw people trying to make poor customers and PMs write Cucumber tests and man...

To me there are worse things in the story, though: they tried to make User Stories and even customer-driven tests and ended up burning out the only customer that was able to do it.

This is still a legitimate concern today with the "product owner" role that a lot of popular Agile processes rely on. In effect the whole premise of having a PO embedded within the team as the authority on requirements that are expected to change at any time means the entire software development process is built around a single human point of failure.

Definitely.

I think I draw the line at asking them to produce user stories, to me that's already too much. Asking them to use Cucumber or BDD rituals is probably against the Geneva convention.

There really is no silver bullet to writing software. You gotta keep a short feedback with users, and not overwhelming them is important.

A lot of the failure of XP was an assumption that all developers develop software the same way, and for all software teams XP’s tenants are optimal.

Practices like pair programming and TDD work on some instances, are absolutely terrible in others. The arrogance of the original XP folks was a hard core belief that they had found the silver bullet of software development, and then marketing it ruthlessly.

> It got only the very basics working and then died when it ran into the vast number of unspecified exceptional cases (gee, where have we heard that before ...) that needed to be handled. And then got cancelled and completely reverted.

> To then use such a failure as a marquee project demonstrating the supposed "superiority" of XP is unabashed chutzpah.

> Now, large IT projects generally fail. So, XP is not wholly to blame.

One could argue that XP achieved a significantly better outcome than the typical project of that size. They didn't cause any big outages, and reached the end result of being cancelled and reverted much more quickly and cheaply than usual.

The article by Fowler cited some ancestors up says something along the lines of "the cancellation of C3 proves that XP is no guarantee for success". Regardless of whether XP works for everyone or not, that's pretty far from claiming it's a silver bullet.

That's what he says now--it's highly revisionist.

All these guys were in the "If it failed, it wasn't true XP." while they were cashing paychecks for promulgating it--Fowler included.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com