Talk:Cowboy coding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Bias 2 Completely unreferenced 3 Note from a Cowboy Coder 4 Hot Disscussions

[edit] Bias

I have cleaned what seemed to be the most biased or uncertain affirmations. Nontheless, this entry still lacks credible sources.

This article has a strong bias against its subject and reads like FUD spread by people trying to sell more programming-methodology books. It paints in very broad strokes, with pointless phrases like, "typical cowboy coding" - as meaningful as saying, "typical non-blonde", since cowboy coding is mainly defined by what it's *not*. Other gems include, "no initial definition of the purpose or scope of the project". So the "typical" cowboy programmer just sits down at the computer and starts typing code without knowing what the program is supposed to do? Please. The article needs a more balanced view than: "You can't write good software if you don't use a strongly defined & enforced programming-methodology. (So go buy more 'Agile' books)."

This article is one big agile advertisement. 216.138.75.50 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of cowboy coding but the bit about ignoring source control is total nonsense. 70.55.45.75 01:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking for the cowboy coding slogan: "Ready! Fire! Aim!"

The advantages and disadvantages contain contradictory items, for example "cowboy coding is scalable" vs "cowboy coding doesn't scale well" (the latter stance being the better argumented one, IMHO). I'll fix the article when I have time. Uttumuttu 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The most contentious claim on this page is that cowboy coding is "empirically proven". I have no agile programming axe to grind, but have met my fair share of cowboy programmers and the only thing their code is proven to do is to apparently work for a while, as it stores up bugs for competent programmers to fix, and hopefully doesn't actually kill the business it's supposed to serve meanwhile. Cow133 09:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Stodgy corporate types might see this as a disadvantage, but recent university research has confirmed otherwise." There is no link to the "recent university research". I also imagine this website was not a place for original research in the first place.

Could we clean out the line above entirely? It seems biased at best, unverifiable at worst. Aschrock 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The term "Cowboy coding" carries heavy negative connotations. This isn't a "methodology" so much as an insult. The entry should not be "scrubbed" to remove bias, it should be documented as a derogatory label for an anti-pattern, and differentiated from a less biased name for a related methodology (such as "Code_and_fix" as labeled by Steve McConnell in Rapid Development)--which by the way is an article in serious need of help as well. Stevelle 22:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completely unreferenced

Where are the references for the "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections? Who has "characterized", "described" and so forth? Classic weasel-wording. Reading this article I get the strong impression that someone is setting up a straw man. mdf 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note from a Cowboy Coder

As unlikely as this article reads, it's very precise and important to recognize. Most small companies do implement Cowboy Coding - usually under the misnomer of Rapid Application Development. It's risky, but can also be profitable for small companies by keeping the overhead down. It should be recognized, especially when a smaller company begins to grow and try to apply more advanced development cycles.

Most companies would be reluctant to reveal this method to their clients - it's far from impressive. And as the nature of this development method centers around a lack of documentation, it will be challenging to find documentation on the topic, I think. Perhaps a proper survey would accommodate this. --Fabricari (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Disscussions

I fear some users above have taken this article personally. Those comments seem so strange to me, as I think it is hard to get emotional about "software design concepts". I read the article, and then this talk page. The talk page surprised me. The article certainly does not seem like an advertizement (maybe it's been updated). I encourage editors to be "detatched" from this subject, and beware of your edits if you "self-identify" as a cowboy coder. I have fallen into this anti-pattern before. It does have a nice property: it makes you feel good at the time. Ace Frahm (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)