4 ms·

so "waterfall == bad and agile == good".... is that your point? I would beg to differ... I've got pretty extensive experience of both and can say for sure that

so "waterfall == bad and agile == good".... is that your point? I would beg to differ... I've got pretty extensive experience of both and can say for sure that there is a negligible difference between the two as far as productivity goes. That view is against popular opinion, but the only thing that really makes a difference is the commitment and intelligence of the people on the team... not the development process. Also.... agile development is a less-good fit with hardware development... and the embedded software that goes on the hardware has to fall in line with that.

bArray 10y ago
I've also had good experience with both. For me waterfall is perfectly fine if you don't have a hard deadline and agile is great for reducing risk (from what I've experienced). I know agile and hardware doesn't go too well together and software of course is told by management to be more agile (because some manager heard it's great). The customer expects fixed incremental feature delivery (which they measure your performance on and scale your bonus with) and somehow as a software engineer you have to be agile in step with the waterfall process. I think in general agile is better for software and waterfall is better for hardware - the problem is somehow they have to go together. It's not the best to say the least - often shipping with errors and bugs.