4 ms·

It's like you reached inside my head, pulled out my crudely formulated thoughts and feelings on why it struck me as ill-advised, and refined and explained every

It's like you reached inside my head, pulled out my crudely formulated thoughts and feelings on why it struck me as ill-advised, and refined and explained everything perfectly. Internal teams! My work these days is directly with people paying for the thing. That's why Agile gives me the shivers.

t43562 4y ago
It's unfortunate that you haven't understood any of the problems of writing software or buying on contract despite having it laid out for you. In reality people change their minds - especially when they see the software - so there's a lot to be said for building it incrementally and showing it to them. The fact that contracts don't suit this behavior might explain why contracts are such an awful way to get software and why they so often go wrong.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > It's unfortunate that you haven't understood any of the problems of writing software or buying on contract despite having it laid out for you. > In reality people change their minds - especially when they see the software - so there's a lot to be said for building it incrementally and showing it to them. Doesn't matter - the people paying for the software are not the ones that are going to be using it, so showing it to them is pointless (they just want their bullet points/requirements checked off). Showing the software to the users is equally pointless, because they don't have the authority to request changes (any change is a bill that has to be approved). See my other reply to you: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=lelanthran#34381865 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=lelanthran#34381865 > The fact that contracts don't suit this behavior might explain why contracts are such an awful way to get software and why they so often go wrong. Maybe, but unless you have an alternative that addresses the problems in not having contracts, there's little point in telling other people that they don't understand the problem.

t43562 4y ago

It's unfortunate that you haven't understood any of the problems of writing software or buying on contract despite having it laid out for you. In reality people change their minds - especially when they see the software - so there's a lot to be said for building it incrementally and showing it to them. The fact that contracts don't suit this behavior might explain why contracts are such an awful way to get software and why they so often go wrong.

lelanthran 4y ago
> It's unfortunate that you haven't understood any of the problems of writing software or buying on contract despite having it laid out for you. > In reality people change their minds - especially when they see the software - so there's a lot to be said for building it incrementally and showing it to them. Doesn't matter - the people paying for the software are not the ones that are going to be using it, so showing it to them is pointless (they just want their bullet points/requirements checked off). Showing the software to the users is equally pointless, because they don't have the authority to request changes (any change is a bill that has to be approved). See my other reply to you: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=lelanthran#34381865 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=lelanthran#34381865 > The fact that contracts don't suit this behavior might explain why contracts are such an awful way to get software and why they so often go wrong. Maybe, but unless you have an alternative that addresses the problems in not having contracts, there's little point in telling other people that they don't understand the problem.