There are two general types of fiction writers: plotters and pantsers. A plotter outlines the story and plans its structure and characters before beginning to write and filling in the details. By contrast, a pantser prefers to write by the seat of the pants, discovering the story as they write and later revising to achieve consistency. There are great writers who are plotters and great writers who are pantsers (and most writers are probably some combination of the two personalities). Each approach requires heavy work. Plotters do their heavy work during the planning stage. Pantsers do their heavy work during rewriting stages.
Most recommendations about software development come from a plotter mentality. The developer should determine user requirements and decide on an architecture and specifications of components before writing the code. Extreme Programming can be viewed as a reaction to this "Big Design Up Front" attitude. Extreme Programming forbids pre-planning: it encourages taking on one small task at a time and doing only enough work to complete that task. It advocates refactoring during development -- similar to rewriting a text -- as the developers discover new requirements or learn the limitations of their design.
Perhaps Extreme Programming is a reaction from pantsers who feel alienated by the dominant software development approach. Perhaps Extreme Programming is their attempt to express and legitimize their own style of thinking. Perhaps by respecting those mental differences, we can improve education to attract more students and make them all feel welcome. And perhaps both plotters and pantsers can understand the other in order to avoid needless religious wars over the right approach to software development.
Felienne wasn't able to answer my questions about plotters and pantsers, such as the following. Can we look at a finished piece of writing and tell whether it was created by a plotter or a pantser? How should we teach writing differently depending on the learner's preferred style? Is one's personal style innate or learned? Can people be trained to work in the other style, and what is the effect on their output? For novices, which approach produces more successfully-completed manuscripts and fewer abandoned efforts? Are different styles more appropriate for different genres, or for series rather than individual books?
Analogies can be useful, especially in sparking ideas, but they should not be taken too far. For example, the frequent analogies between civil engineering and software engineering have led to unproductive "bridge envy" and incorrect comparisons. Although many bridges are built each year, most of them do not require imaginative design because they are similar or identical to previously-built bridges. By contrast, every new program is fundamentally different from what exists -- otherwise, we would just reuse or modify existing code. Therefore, the design challenges are much greater for software.
I also have questions about the analogy between fiction writing and programming. (I want to admit to you and to myself that I am a plotter, so these questions may reflect my personal bias.) Although plotting and pantsing may both produce great novels when practiced by great writers, would they both produce great nonfiction -- or, for that matter, great bridges? Extreme Programming has been shown to work in certain circumstances, but few people practice it in its pure form, and it does not scale up to large development efforts. It is commonly said that you can't refactor a program to make it secure or to give it certain other desirable properties; is this actually true, and if so what does it say about the utility of pantsing in software engineering? Can pantsing work well within the confines of a well-understood domain -- such as writing a period romance novel or building a website based on a framework you have used before?
Whatever the benefits of the writing analogy for software engineering, it is a thought-provoking alternative to the civil engineering analogy. It reminds us to be aware of the many ways of thinking, not just our own.