Vitaliy email (remove spam text)
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> Good question. I don't know why, I think they were practiced by a small
>> minority, and the majority was educated and encouraged to follow the
>> waterfall approach,
> You keep saying this, but I don't think the waterfall method is taught
> that. It's usually mentioned as the "traditional" method, but if you look
> under the hood of real projects you won't see one actually adhering to it.
I know real projects don't work this way. But I know they still teach it in
technical colleges. Just like they still teach Keynesian economics in public
I like it.
>> I am of the opinion that there don't exist any projects where 100% of
>> the requirements must be gathered before the implementation work can
>> begin. You can always start with a small piece, and build the software
> Not if you want to be able to use the early work without architectural
> changes or scrapping it completely.
Nothing wrong with architectural changes. :) This is software we're talking
> Also nobody said you need 100% of the
> requirements up front.
I'm sure Gerhard said something along the lines that on some projects you
need to do most of the design work upfront.
> You do however need a good idea of the big picture
> and all of what the system has to do at a high level, else you're going to
> write a lot of throw-away code.
I agree with this.
>> In Agile, the rule is simple: you gather enough requirements to do one
> Then what happens when the requirements for the next iteration come along
> and you find you did the previous iteration the wrong way to fit on the
> features? You'll probably hear developers saying things like "I wish we'd
> known ...", "If you'd only told us...".
I meant "requirements" in the sense of "detailed specifications" (bad choice
of words on my part). I touched more on this in my other reply.
>> It sounds like you and Oline have been spared the "scientific
>> development" approaches, then. Consider yourself lucky. :)
> I'm not up on the latest buzzwords for sets of management rules all
> up neatly for easy consumption, so I don't know what you think "scientific
> development" means.
I meant the waterfall approach and CMM, to name two examples.
See also: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devprogs.htm?key=programming
You must be a member of the
piclist mailing list
(not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the