3 ms·

I.e. spiral https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_model

• x86x87 3y ago
  TIL. Thanks for sharing this
  • ethbr0 3y ago
    Sure! I tossed some thoughts on the sibling comment above yours.
• quickthrower2 3y ago
  That is interesting. Going to look more into this. When something looks like common sense codified, then I like it :-)
  • ethbr0 3y ago
    As with many development methodologies, it probably has a formal version that I'm not understanding. But in my head, it's always been (1) identify areas of risk, (2) sprint to a prototype that decreases or quantifies that risk, (3) evaluate whether you've reduced risk sufficiently, then either (4a) proceed to the next risk or (4b) do another prototype sprint on this risk, and finally after all pockets of risk have been reduced (5) begin building your finished product. Believe it comes from state of the art development for military procurement, where "What is even possible?" is a valid question. But it always resonated with software planning for me, by making it more about risk reduction rather than guessing.
• rswail 3y ago
  Sigh, this was the basis of "Iterative Development" that came along with the "Rational Unified Process" and was the precursor to the current fad of epics/stories/sprints/t-shirts/Fibonacci that has polluted current programming. People won't follow it because it means reviewing their assumptions and re-planning, but there are always external entities that will not or can not do so (other departments, finance, customers, marketing, sales, etc etc).