4 ms·
I thought it was the opposite, with Fred Brooks championing “build one to throw away” until software processes had developed to a more flexible, iterative model
by sp332 3y ago
I thought it was the opposite, with Fred Brooks championing “build one to throw away” until software processes had developed to a more flexible, iterative model. But that’s because usually there is no trustworthy spec, and in this case, they can observe a working web browser in the wild to get requirements nailed down.
- doctor_eval 3y agoRight - I’m sure he’s the source of the aphorism, “plan to build it twice - you will anyway”. I think having a great, self consistent spec to build from is awesome, but it’s rare that a spec doesn’t require revision after contact with reality; and at that point, it’s just another kind of software.
- Hermitian909 3y ago> But that’s because usually there is no trustworthy spec This is the key - most of our writing on modern software comes from people building things with requirements that are unclear. There are pockets of the software world where detailed specs work wonders. One of my professors in college had made a career writing these sorts of specs in a certain niche of robotics. It'd worked fabulously for him precisely because nothing was new or innovative, it just required exacting craftsmanship.