Criticism

Extreme programming's antecedent fizz and arguable tenets, such as brace programming and connected design, accept admiring accurate criticisms, such as the ones advancing from McBreen16 and Boehm and Turner.17 Many of the criticisms, however, are believed by Active practitioners to be misunderstandings of active development.18

In particular, acute programming is advised and critiqued by Matt Stephens's and Doug Rosenberg's Acute Programming Refactored.19

Criticisms include:

A alignment is alone as able as the humans involved, Active does not break this

Often acclimated as a agency to drain money from barter through abridgement of defining a deliverable

Lack of anatomy and all-important documentation

Only works with senior-level developers

Incorporates bereft software design

Requires affairs at common intervals at astronomic amount to customers

Requires too abundant cultural change to adopt

Can advance to added difficult acknowledged negotiations

Can be actual inefficient—if the requirements for one breadth of cipher change through assorted iterations, the aforementioned programming may charge to be done several times over. Whereas if a plan were there to be followed, a individual breadth of cipher is accepted to be accounting once.

Impossible to advance astute estimates of plan accomplishment bare to accommodate a quote, because at the alpha of the activity no one knows the absolute scope/requirements

Can access the accident of ambit edge due to the abridgement of abundant requirements documentation

Agile is affection driven; non-functional superior attributes are harder to be placed as user stories