3 ms·
Its really not quite as bad as it looks at first glance. Step 2: "we design an interactive prototype" allows them to get the feedback that really makes more ag
by brd 15y ago
Its really not quite as bad as it looks at first glance.
Step 2: "we design an interactive prototype" allows them to get the feedback that really makes more agile methods work. You don't need to constantly iterate during development if you iterate properly during prototyping. I certainly wouldn't advocate this method but its not a vanilla waterfall method.
- AndrewDucker 15y agoAgreed - this isn't as poisonous as the usual waterfall techniques are. And frankly, if you're working on a massive project that has strict requirements (either regulatory or functional) then up-front analysis has a lot going for it.
- edu 15y agoThe original waterfall spec. describes the usage of prototypes. I wrote a small review of it a few weeks ago: http://emtrics.com/2011/10/17/software-development-a-little-bit-of-history/ http://emtrics.com/2011/10/17/software-development-a-little-...
- ctdonath 15y agoThat they insert what amounts to a single early design iteration hardly rescues the inanity of "hey! I sliced bread! this is awesome!"
- absconditus 15y agoIf one reads the paper most commonly cited as the source of the waterfall methodology he or she will discover that the author of the paper recommends doing something akin to prototyping before designing the real program. The paper is actually a critique of the process now commonly referred to as waterfall and the author does not recommend using the process as first presented in the critique.
- arctangent 15y agoRoyce's paper can be found here: http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Process/waterfall.pdf http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Process/wate...