I just had to quote Kent Beck over at the XPBookDiscussionGroup list:
"Invest in the design of the system every day.
Strive to make the design of the system an excellent fit for the needs of the system that day. When your
understanding of the best possible design leaps forward, work gradually but persistently to bring the design back into alignment with your understanding.
understanding of the best possible design leaps forward, work gradually but persistently to bring the design back into alignment with your understanding.
I was taught exactly the opposite of this strategy in school: "Put in all the design you can before you begin implementation because you'll never get another chance." The intellectual justification for this strategy came from
a Barry Boehm study of 1960's defense contracts showing that the cost of fixing defects rose exponentially over time. If the same data also hold for adding features to today's software, then the cost of large-scale design
changes should rise dramatically over time. In that case, the most economical design strategy is to make big design decisions early and defer all small-scale decisions until later.
a Barry Boehm study of 1960's defense contracts showing that the cost of fixing defects rose exponentially over time. If the same data also hold for adding features to today's software, then the cost of large-scale design
changes should rise dramatically over time. In that case, the most economical design strategy is to make big design decisions early and defer all small-scale decisions until later.
For an assumption that shaped software development orthodoxy for decades, the increasing cost of change over time received little scrutiny. This assumption may no longer be valid. Do changes also increase in cost, the
same way defects do? Even assuming changes do increase in cost sometimes, are there conditions under which the cost of changes does not increase? If changes do not grow increasingly expensive, what does that imply about the
best way to develop software?
same way defects do? Even assuming changes do increase in cost sometimes, are there conditions under which the cost of changes does not increase? If changes do not grow increasingly expensive, what does that imply about the
best way to develop software?
XP teams work hard to create conditions under which the cost of changing the software doesn't rise catastrophically. The automated tests, the continual practice of improving the design, and the explicit social process
all contribute to keep the cost of changes low. XP teams are confident in their ability to adapt the design to future
requirements. Because of this, XP teams can meet their human need for immediate and frequent success as well as their economic need to defer investment to the last responsible moment. Some of the teams who read and
applied the first edition of this book didn't get the part of the message about the last responsible moment. They piled story on story as quickly as possible with the least possible investment in design. Without daily
attention to design, the cost of changes does skyrocket. The dire predictions of the critics comes true: poorly designed, brittle, hard-to-change systems.
all contribute to keep the cost of changes low. XP teams are confident in their ability to adapt the design to future
requirements. Because of this, XP teams can meet their human need for immediate and frequent success as well as their economic need to defer investment to the last responsible moment. Some of the teams who read and
applied the first edition of this book didn't get the part of the message about the last responsible moment. They piled story on story as quickly as possible with the least possible investment in design. Without daily
attention to design, the cost of changes does skyrocket. The dire predictions of the critics comes true: poorly designed, brittle, hard-to-change systems.
The advice to XP teams is not to minimize design investment over the short run, but to keep the design investment in proportion to the needs of the system so far. The question is not whether or not to design, the question is
when to design. Incremental design suggests that the most effective time to design is in the light of experience.
when to design. Incremental design suggests that the most effective time to design is in the light of experience.
If "small, safe steps" is how to design, the next question is where to design. The simple heuristic I have found helpful is to eliminate duplication. If I have the same logic in two places, I work with the design to understand how I can have only one copy. Designs without duplication tend to be easy to change. You don't find yourself in the situation where you have to change the code in several places to add one feature. As a direction for improvement, incremental design doesn't say that designing in advance of experience is horrible. It says that design done close to when it is used is more efficient. As your expertise grows in making changes to a running system in small, safe steps, you can afford to
defer more and more of the design investment. As you do so, the system will get simpler, progress will start sooner, tests will be easier to write, and because the system is smaller there will be less to communicate with the team.
defer more and more of the design investment. As you do so, the system will get simpler, progress will start sooner, tests will be easier to write, and because the system is smaller there will be less to communicate with the team.
As more teams invest in daily design, they notice that the changes they are making are similar regardless of the purpose of the system. Refactoring is a discipline of design that codifies these recurring patterns of changes.
These refactorings can occur at any level of scale. Few design decisions are difficult to change once made. The result is systems that can start small and grow as needed without exorbitant cost."
These refactorings can occur at any level of scale. Few design decisions are difficult to change once made. The result is systems that can start small and grow as needed without exorbitant cost."