What Happened to Extreme Programming, and Should We Bring It Back?

In the early 2000s, Extreme Programming, or XP, felt like a revolution. Not just because agile was new, but because it made development feel human again. Teams were pairing full time. Tests came before code. Refactoring wasn’t something you saved for a “later” that never came. Features shipped often, feedback loops were tight, and engineers understood not just what they were building, but why it mattered. Fast forward to today, and XP barely gets mentioned in most teams. You’ll hear about agile, Scrum, Kanban, maybe SAFe if things have gone dark. You might hear a senior dev say, “I write tests before code,” but they won’t call it XP. So what happened? Why did Extreme Programming fall out of fashion? And is it something we should still be paying attention to? XP Was Designed for Change, Not for Speed Kent Beck, who created Extreme Programming, said it best: “I’m not a great programmer. I’m just a good programmer with great habits.” And that’s what XP tried to build: great habits that made change safe instead of terrifying. The first XP team worked on a failing payroll system at Chrysler. The code was brittle, requirements shifted every week, and the old way of planning everything up front clearly wasn’t working. Beck’s approach was simple: lean into the chaos. Instead of resisting change, optimize for it. That meant doing the things we already knew were good, such as testing, refactoring, clean code, collaboration but doing them constantly, deliberately, and together. What Extreme Programming Looked Like XP wasn’t a mindset. It was a method. It introduced 12 practices that were meant to be used together, not picked apart: Test-Driven Development (TDD) Pair Programming Continuous Integration Small Releases Simple Design Refactoring Collective Code Ownership Coding Standards Planning Game On-Site Customer Metaphor (a shared understanding of the system) Sustainable Pace (often called the 40-hour work week) The strength of XP wasn’t in any one part. It was in how tightly the practices reinforced each other. Tests made refactoring safe. Pairing shared knowledge. Frequent releases kept the team close to real users. The loop was tight, and the feedback was constant. Why XP Quietly Disappeared It’s not that XP didn’t work. It’s that it didn’t scale easily. XP worked best in small teams where everyone sat together, talked frequently, and had access to real users. When agile started getting adopted by larger organizations, XP wasn’t a natural fit. Scrum, with its roles and ceremonies, looked much easier to roll out across departments. The industry shifted toward frameworks that looked manageable on a slide. XP required culture. It required discipline. It required people to buy in, not just attend meetings. And let’s be honest. Some people hated pairing. Others pushed back against test-first development. And not every company was ready to give developers that much autonomy or ownership. What Stayed Behind Even though the term “Extreme Programming” faded, a lot of its practices stuck around. TDD is still valued in backend-heavy teams. CI/CD pipelines are standard across most modern stacks. Pair programming happens during onboarding or while tackling tricky architecture. Refactoring is no longer a dirty word. Sustainable pace is something most teams try to respect, at least in theory. XP didn’t disappear. It was absorbed. And in some ways, that’s the best compliment you can give a methodology. Can XP Work in 2025? Yes, but not copy-pasted from a book. XP has to evolve for how teams work today. Remote work is the norm nowadays. We don’t sit in the same room as our teammates, let alone the customer. Full-time pairing can feel draining, especially over Zoom. TDD sounds good until you’re prototyping a UI and every test breaks on every animation tweak. But that doesn’t mean XP is useless. In fact, its focus on clarity, communication, and clean delivery is more relevant than ever. A modern take on XP might include: Pairing for complex stories or high-risk areas, not the whole day Writing tests first on backend logic, but maybe not pixel-perfect UI Refactoring time built into sprints Shared ownership through strong code reviews Continuous delivery with fast rollbacks when needed XP isn’t a script. It’s a system for caring deeply about what we’re building and how we build it. What XP Looks Like in Real Teams Take a company like Monzo, or any fast-moving fintech with a strong engineering culture. They don’t call what they do “Extreme Programming.” But the signs are there. Features roll out in small, tested chunks Engineers own the product end to end Refactoring is not something you fight to schedule Pairing happens during tough problems Releases are frequent, safe, and automated The same is true for a lot of well-run engineering teams. They may not have “XP” written on a whiteboard. But they’re living it quietly and effectively. Should We Bring XP Back? If your team struggles with technical debt, late bugs, long QA phases, or unclear ownership, XP offers a path forward. Not a trendy one. Not an easy one. But a proven one. You don’t need to adopt all 12 practices. But you do need to buy into the mindset: change is constant, quality is a team responsibility, and feedback matters more than prediction. XP works best when you actually care about how your software is made and not just what it does. And if that sounds like your team, then yes, XP is worth bringing back. Not as a brand, but as a way of working that still holds up. FAQs What is Extreme Programming in simple terms? Extreme Programming (XP) is a software development approach that focuses on fast feedback, simplicity, and technical discipline. It uses practices like test-driven development, pair programming, and small releases to keep teams flexible and codebases clean. Why is it called Extreme Programming? The idea behind the name was to take good development practices and push them to the extreme. For example, if testing is good, XP suggests writing tests before the code. If feedback is helpful, XP encourages […]

Undo a Git Push – How to Revert, Reset, or Recover Commits

You pushed something you shouldn’t have. Or it was an unfinished feature. Maybe a test line you meant to delete. Maybe even a .env file with your API key. We’ve all been there. The good news is that Git makes it pretty easy to fix. You just need to know which method fits your situation. In this guide, we’ll walk through 4 different ways to undo a git push, when to use them, and what each one actually does behind the scenes. When Should You Revert vs Reset? This is the first decision you need to make. Ask yourself:Is this commit already live on a shared branch? Like main, or anything your teammates are working on If yes → use git revert. It’s the safest way to undo a commit without messing up shared history. If no → you’re fine to use git reset. Just be careful with force pushing afterward. How to Undo a Git Push Using git revert Let’s say you pushed something bad to main. Maybe you want to undo it, but you don’t want to mess with anyone else’s work. That’s where git revert comes in. It doesn’t delete the commit. Instead, it creates a new one that reverses it. Step-by-step: You’ll be asked to confirm a commit message. You can just save and close the file, or write your own. Use this when you’re working on a shared branch and just want to safely undo something. Use git reset When You’re Still Working Solo This one’s more aggressive. git reset actually rewinds your branch history to an earlier state. Only use it if you’re working on a feature branch and no one else has pulled your changes yet. Here’s how to remove the last commit but keep your code intact: Want to wipe out the commit and the code changes too? That –force-with-lease part is important. It makes sure you’re not clobbering someone else’s changes by accident. You can read more in Git’s official documentation. Bring Back Deleted Commits Using git reflog Made a reset mistake and wiped something important? You can usually bring it back with git reflog. This command shows you every move your HEAD has made recently, even the ones not in git log. To recover a lost commit: Reflog is your safety net. It’s what you use when you’ve messed something up and thought it was gone forever. Clean Up History with Interactive Rebase Let’s say your commit history is a mess—multiple “fix typo” or “oops” commits. Before pushing or merging, you might want to clean things up. That’s where interactive rebase comes in. Here’s the command: It opens a list of your last 4 commits. You can: Change pick to squash to combine commits Change pick to drop to delete them Or edit the messages After you’re done, force push the cleaned-up history: Only use this on local branches where history rewriting won’t mess with others. Quick Recap Table Tool When To Use Safe for Shared Branches? revert Undo a pushed commit safely ✅ Yes reset Rewrite history on a private branch ❌ No reflog Recover commits after a mistake ✅/❌ Depends rebase -i Tidy up before pushing or merging ❌ No Examples (Real Scenarios) Scenario 1: You pushed a broken commit to main→ Use git revert and push the fix Scenario 2: You committed something messy and want to fix before merging→ Use git reset –soft HEAD~1 or rebase to clean it up Scenario 3: You ran git reset –hard and lost your work→ Use git reflog to get it back FAQs Can I undo a git push without deleting my changes? Yes. Use git reset –soft HEAD~1. It keeps your changes in place. Is git revert safer than reset? Yes. It never deletes anything and works well on shared branches. Can I recover deleted commits? Yes, use git reflog to find and reset back to them. Do I have to use –force after reset or rebase? Do I have to use –force after reset or rebase?

Differences Between Verification and Validation Testing

In software development, building a reliable product is not just about writing code that runs. It is about ensuring that every step of the process produces something accurate, reliable, and ready for real users. That is where verification and validation testing come into play. While these two terms often get thrown around interchangeably, they are not the same. Confusing them can cause real problems, leading to missed bugs, blown timelines, and unhappy customers. If you want to build software that works the way it should, you need to understand the real difference between verification and validation testing. What Is Verification Testing? Verification testing answers a very specific question: Are we building the product right? It focuses on whether the software is being built according to the original specifications and design documents. Verification does not care if the product is usable or loved by customers yet. It only cares whether the system matches what was promised on paper. Typical verification activities include code reviews, design inspections, requirement walkthroughs, and static analysis. These checks happen early, often before a single line of executable code exists. The idea is to catch problems before they turn into expensive bugs later. In short, when you verify, you are making sure the foundation is strong before you build higher. You are asking, “Did we design this correctly?” not “Does it work for users?” What Is Validation Testing? Validation testing answers a very different question: Are we building the right product? Here, the focus shifts from internal documents to the real, working software. Validation checks whether the completed product actually meets the needs of the users and stakeholders. It is about behavior, experience, and actual results in the real world. Common validation activities include functional testing, integration testing, user acceptance testing, and system testing. This work happens later, once the system is operational and ready for hands-on evaluation. In short, when you validate, you are asking whether the finished product solves the problem it was supposed to solve. It is not enough for the product to match the specifications. It needs to match reality. Key Differences Between Verification and Validation Testing The difference between verification and validation testing is not just about timing. It touches every part of how you build, review, and deliver quality software. Here are the real, practical differences explained clearly. Focus: Prevention vs Detection Verification is about preventing defects before they are baked into the code. It is proactive, aiming to catch problems early by checking documents and designs. Validation is about detecting defects after the system is built. It is reactive, finding issues that were not obvious until the software was put together and used in real conditions. Timing: Early vs Late Stage Testing Verification happens early. It starts before coding begins and continues throughout the design and development stages. Validation happens later. It kicks in once a working version of the product exists and can be tested in practice. Type of Testing: Static vs Dynamic Verification is often static. It involves reviewing documents, inspecting code without running it, and analyzing system models. Validation is dynamic. It requires executing the software, running tests, and observing behavior under different conditions. Documents vs Actual Product Verification checks the paperwork. Are the requirements clear? Are the designs sound? Is the code compliant with standards? Validation checks the running application. Is the login system letting users in securely? Does the checkout process work without errors? Is the app behaving properly on mobile and desktop? Cost of Issues: Catch Early or Catch Late Mistakes caught during verification are usually cheaper to fix. Fixing a broken requirement document takes hours. Fixing a broken core system after it is live takes weeks or months. This is why strong verification processes can save massive amounts of money over the life of a project. Validation matters too, but by the time you are validating, mistakes are harder and more expensive to correct. Quick Comparison Table Of Verification Vs. Validation Aspect Verification Testing Validation Testing Purpose Are we building the product right? Are we building the right product? Focus Process, documents, designs Functionality, user needs Timing Before or during development After development Type Static analysis Dynamic execution Activities Reviews, walkthroughs, inspections Functional testing, UAT, system testing Goal Catch errors early Confirm real-world behavior Real-World Example – Login System Testing Suppose you are building a login system for an app. Verification Testing:During verification, you would review the requirement document to make sure it defines password rules correctly. You would inspect the design diagrams to ensure multi-factor authentication flows are laid out properly. You might also review the source code to check that encryption standards are being followed. Validation Testing:During validation, you would test the live app. You would enter valid and invalid passwords to check how the system responds. The test account would be locked out after failed attempts. You would ensure that users can successfully complete two-factor authentication and access their accounts securely. Verification makes sure the design and code match the intent. Validation makes sure the experience actually works for users. Why You Need Both for Quality Software Verification and validation are not competing processes. They are complementary.Good verification catches design mistakes early when they are cheap and easy to fix. Good validation catches gaps in functionality or user experience before they embarrass you in production. Skipping either one is dangerous. If you only verify, you might build something perfectly according to plan that nobody actually wants to use. If you only validate, you might spend months fixing basic problems that should have been caught before coding even started. Quality software requires both. Conclusion Understanding the difference between verification and validation testing is not just academic. It is essential if you want to deliver software that works well and stands the test of time. Verification ensures you build correctly according to plans and specifications. Validation ensures that what you have built actually meets real-world needs. When you respect both sides of testing, verifying carefully at every stage and validating thoroughly […]