The paper "Extreme Programming Considered Harmful for Reliable Software Development 2.0 by Gerold Keefer" is a wonderful example of an article on information technology. Gerold Keefer's bias about extreme programming lies in facts that he has collected over time and he has made it open to the public. I agree with Keefer's bias about extreme programming outcomes or software should be subjected to quality assurance checks. This not only adds value to the software but also paves the way for advanced and future research. With reference to the above statement and according to the case text provided individuals have come up with software that is outstanding but has not been granted to be sure through better quality assurance checks hence this type of extreme programming is considered sub-standard. Gerold Keefer states that despite the negatives impacts of Extreme Programming, it has or it expects to get a clear understanding of agile methods and applications of extreme engineering to most software testing platforms.
As a matter of fact over the last decade, researchers and scholars have worked tirelessly to come up with agile platforms that have up to date qualities; the bias comes in when individuals and companies come up with software that is of low quality but authorities drive them to extreme programming standard yet they do not meet this platform.
The practice of producing extreme programs is not refactoring; this practice takes place after initial coding so at to improve the appearance of the software being developed, but to the author, extreme programming calls for unit testing hence, refactoring leads to extra work hence, less efficient. The last value is simplicity; this is a respectable designing principle that extreme programming deploys to make sure that its works are user-friendly, but this does not take place in the contemporary programming society.