4 ms·
I'm puzzled by #31, I can only interpret it as iterative development not working. What would be the intended interpretation?
by kristaps 16y ago
I'm puzzled by #31, I can only interpret it as iterative development not working.
What would be the intended interpretation?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- JanezStupar 16y agoMore of the same is not enough to get you to some other faraway place. Making a better car will not result in an airplane. That does not mean that making a car first is not an worthy endeavor for gaining experience to build an airplane - should you need e.g. machining, metalworking and general engineering experience. But it won't give you ANY aerospace background. Or as Alan Mulally famously put it: "An automobile has about 10,000 moving parts, right? An airplane has two million, and it has to stay up in the air." (on being asked "How are you going to tackle something as complex and unfamiliar as the auto business when we are in such tough financial shape?")
- skmurphy 16y agoSome problems require a revolutionary approach. For example, managing the info in a departmental system for 100 users is very different from an Internet application serving a million users. You can't just evolve from one to the other, you need to radically re-design for fundamentally different requirements.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoIterative development is good at getting the details right. But you're never going to make a huge leap with iterative development, you need to make such leaps intentionally and with significant planning, even if you iteratively fine-tune after that.