piclist 2009\02\17\032617a >
Thread: Agile programming
face BY : 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
> like
> 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

{Quote hidden}

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
>> gradually.
> 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
about, right?

> 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
>> iteration.
> 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
> new
> 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
> bundled
> 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.


<6184B0998CF24488BBD5C383061B8B8E@ws11> 7bit

See also: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devprogs.htm?key=programming
Reply You must be a member of the piclist mailing list (not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the piclist. This form requires JavaScript and a browser/email client that can handle form mailto: posts.
Subject (change) Agile programming

month overview.

new search...