5 ms·

I think we also have a ton to learn in the software project management space. Agile for example would be quickly laughed off and dismissed. Our field is curren

I think we also have a ton to learn in the software project management space. Agile for example would be quickly laughed off and dismissed. Our field is currently full of cargo-cult practices, studies and best practices without any empirical research, java schools, a strong focus on "awesome" and easy to get started instead of useful and simple; we're still a pop culture for the most part.

mayukh 10y ago
Solution dictates the construction process. No point in over engineering a consumer facing app when flexibility dictates who wins in the market place. Not endorsing agile or any other practice in particular.
saiya-jin 10y ago
agile has its place, in some form, in some places. problem is people treat it like panacea. completely agree about the pop culture analogy especially with devs with say < 5-7 years experience, a good one :)
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
What's wrong with Agile? I mean, I wouldn't design a rocket, bridge, or certain kinds of software that way... But talking about most web front-ends or feature services?
KaiP 10y ago
Use the right tool for the job. Risk profiles between web app software and rover software are totally different.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  It's harder to sympathize with "it's ok to write shit code if failure doesn't mean a literal explosion or being literally stranded on Mars" after a completely preventable identity theft...
  - jeremiep 10y ago
    Its especially hard when that mentality doesn't account for future feature requests or maintenance. The original developer happily moved on to botch another project while you're the one fixing up the mess. Also, how come software is either a "web app" or a "rover". There's a huge spectrum in between. Not everyone writes CRUDs; even if these types of applications are usually the worst to maintain because they are developed so carelessly with little regard for simplicity.
komali2 10y ago
To be fair, NASA software engineers don't exactly act like your average agile start-up team,because once the "product" is out, patching is really feasible. Whereas for your average webapp, it's more strategic to iterate based on feedback.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Yep. NASA can't release patches (hardware, least) and switching to "version 2" costs a solid $800,000,000. I feel confident that if the development costs of reworking a webapp were measured in years and millions, we'd see a pretty different approach to building them.
- komali2 10y ago
  Whoops too late to edit. Should be "patching isn't really feasible".
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    Except they DO send out patches. Just not very often.
    - komali2 10y ago
      Well, my point was it's a bit more trouble to patch something on another planet that it is to `heroku push.`
  - karthikb 10y ago
    And yet, NASA frequently updates code on launched vehicles. In fact because of schedule and orbital mechanics, Spirit and Opportunity were launched before final flight code was ready, and an OTA was performed while the vehicles where in flight: http://spacenews.com/jan-15-2004-spirit-rover-begins-amazing-visit-mars/ http://spacenews.com/jan-15-2004-spirit-rover-begins-amazing...

mayukh 10y ago

Solution dictates the construction process. No point in over engineering a consumer facing app when flexibility dictates who wins in the market place. Not endorsing agile or any other practice in particular.

saiya-jin 10y ago

agile has its place, in some form, in some places. problem is people treat it like panacea. completely agree about the pop culture analogy especially with devs with say < 5-7 years experience, a good one :)

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

What's wrong with Agile? I mean, I wouldn't design a rocket, bridge, or certain kinds of software that way... But talking about most web front-ends or feature services?

KaiP 10y ago

Use the right tool for the job. Risk profiles between web app software and rover software are totally different.

throwaway729 10y ago
It's harder to sympathize with "it's ok to write shit code if failure doesn't mean a literal explosion or being literally stranded on Mars" after a completely preventable identity theft...
- jeremiep 10y ago
  Its especially hard when that mentality doesn't account for future feature requests or maintenance. The original developer happily moved on to botch another project while you're the one fixing up the mess. Also, how come software is either a "web app" or a "rover". There's a huge spectrum in between. Not everyone writes CRUDs; even if these types of applications are usually the worst to maintain because they are developed so carelessly with little regard for simplicity.

komali2 10y ago

To be fair, NASA software engineers don't exactly act like your average agile start-up team,because once the "product" is out, patching is really feasible. Whereas for your average webapp, it's more strategic to iterate based on feedback.

Bartweiss 10y ago
Yep. NASA can't release patches (hardware, least) and switching to "version 2" costs a solid $800,000,000. I feel confident that if the development costs of reworking a webapp were measured in years and millions, we'd see a pretty different approach to building them.
komali2 10y ago
Whoops too late to edit. Should be "patching isn't really feasible".
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Except they DO send out patches. Just not very often.
  - komali2 10y ago
    Well, my point was it's a bit more trouble to patch something on another planet that it is to `heroku push.`
- karthikb 10y ago
  And yet, NASA frequently updates code on launched vehicles. In fact because of schedule and orbital mechanics, Spirit and Opportunity were launched before final flight code was ready, and an OTA was performed while the vehicles where in flight: http://spacenews.com/jan-15-2004-spirit-rover-begins-amazing-visit-mars/ http://spacenews.com/jan-15-2004-spirit-rover-begins-amazing...