Extreme Programming (XP) has spent the last several decades under perpetual scrutiny from software developers obsessed with early design methodologies. The idea behind this is simple: if you want to make sure something is built well, you must first design it well, then assemble it using reliable tools. For objects such as houses, cars or tables, whose design gradually evolves over decades, initial design methods are sufficient. Computer programs, on the other hand, are products often designed for an industry that evolves at a faster pace than any other. For this type of environment, more dynamic methods are needed, which is why XP is a viable candidate. How the design is modified from the traditional initial design method will be discussed. The general picture obtained from a first glance at the XP method tends to imply that design is a frivolous activity placed second to programming. Although programming is extremely important for doing anything, it is nothing without design like design without programming. They compensate each other for their own mistakes. Programming builds the program, but leads to overly complex systems. Design leads to well-structured systems, but no actual programs. As such, design is not frivolous, but neither is programming. How is it that XP actually combines design and programming in the right proportions? It tends to iterate a certain algorithm until the project is complete: design, design implementation, then redesign and refactoring (Fowler). Meanwhile, the design remains simple (Fowler). Simple is a key word in XP. In fact, Martin Fowler's essay (Fowler) seems to make this the core of XP. However, what exactly is meant by simplicity depends on several factors. Like Marti...... middle of paper ...... changing the design pattern would therefore be counterproductive. However, this does not necessarily mean that design patterns will always be the solution to a problem. Instead, they provide an idea that can be modified to solve a problem. XP is an evolutionary design methodology. He religiously follows simplicity with YAGNI as his motto. To do this, it takes into account refactoring when necessary. This requires rethinking the structure of the program, which is easier by following YAGNI. Considering today's IT industry, where last minute changes are commonplace, his methodologies fit like a glove. It may still have some unnoticed needed improvements, but it appears to be a better fit for the industry than the initial design. Works Cited Fowler, Martin. “Is design dead? Martin Fowler. N/A, and Web. October 18 2013. .