3 ms·

This essay is rooted in nostalgia and reads as a post facto justification for "I like the old way better". "I've never done waterfall" or "we specified everyth

by sblom 5y ago

This essay is rooted in nostalgia and reads as a post facto justification for "I like the old way better". "I've never done waterfall" or "we specified everything (on paper! millennials don't read amirite) before we built it", which is it? There's a whole lot of generalizing from personal experience to "universal truths" that simply aren't universal. or even truths? For instance, there are certainly some teams that get value out of code reviews.

leethomas 5y ago
I agree that the article generalizes, basically to the point of condescension. Were you “there” though? I wasn’t so genuinely curious if his recollection reflects reality. EDIT: they responded to another parent comment I created and were definitely working at Microsoft during the period.
- kennytilton 5y ago
  Started programming in 1981. His recollection is correct. We were agile. Today's "Agile" is a disaster. We are not being condescending, we are mourning what once was an uninterrupted delight.
Miiko 5y ago
> "I've never done waterfall" Yes, that's correct, I've never done waterfall either. By definition [1] "The waterfall model has, at least, five to seven phases that follow in strict linear order, where a phase can’t begin until the previous phase has been completed." (emphasis mine) - we never did that, and I never heard of anybody following that model. All these steps has to overlap - it is not possible to write good requirements without having at least draft design etc - and they surely did. [1] https://www.projectmanager.com/waterfall-methodology https://www.projectmanager.com/waterfall-methodology
metalforever 5y ago
Okay, let me explain this. The way it's actually done is in-between. You can't really seriously agile your way into a great distributed architecture without some sort of planning process. You create a very high level document explaining the main components of the program. You make a second one with details (in a waterfall way) explaining everything you are going to be concentrating on in depth for the next 1-2 months. The rest is kept very high level. Then you can just change course if the reception of the 1-2 month work isn't ideal or the company needs to change direction.

by sblom 5y ago

leethomas 5y ago

I agree that the article generalizes, basically to the point of condescension. Were you “there” though? I wasn’t so genuinely curious if his recollection reflects reality. EDIT: they responded to another parent comment I created and were definitely working at Microsoft during the period.

kennytilton 5y ago
Started programming in 1981. His recollection is correct. We were agile. Today's "Agile" is a disaster. We are not being condescending, we are mourning what once was an uninterrupted delight.

Miiko 5y ago

> "I've never done waterfall" Yes, that's correct, I've never done waterfall either. By definition [1] "The waterfall model has, at least, five to seven phases that follow in strict linear order, where a phase can’t begin until the previous phase has been completed." (emphasis mine) - we never did that, and I never heard of anybody following that model. All these steps has to overlap - it is not possible to write good requirements without having at least draft design etc - and they surely did. [1] https://www.projectmanager.com/waterfall-methodology https://www.projectmanager.com/waterfall-methodology

metalforever 5y ago

Okay, let me explain this. The way it's actually done is in-between. You can't really seriously agile your way into a great distributed architecture without some sort of planning process. You create a very high level document explaining the main components of the program. You make a second one with details (in a waterfall way) explaining everything you are going to be concentrating on in depth for the next 1-2 months. The rest is kept very high level. Then you can just change course if the reception of the 1-2 month work isn't ideal or the company needs to change direction.