4 ms·

> Waterfall doesn't mean not to iterate I don't want to be pedantic, but waterfall does mean exactly that by definition (or at least it used to). There are ple

by hnben 3y ago

> Waterfall doesn't mean not to iterate I don't want to be pedantic, but waterfall does mean exactly that by definition (or at least it used to). There are plenty of variations, that include prototypes or MVPs or iterations (e.g. V-Model, Spiral model). > waterfall is just the straw man of scrum zealots You can't just change the definition of a word, and then call people using the original definition "zealots", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

rramadass 3y ago
> but waterfall does mean exactly that by definition No. This article The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC gives you the details (archive version since the site seems to be down) - https://archive.is/jbBta https://archive.is/jbBta
atoav 3y ago
The question is whether any of the "classical" examples for waterfall project managements out there didn't iterate at all. Having iterations is not incompatible with waterfall per se. E.g. you can plan to have 3 prototypes and then one final product beforehand. You can also decide to skip project phases if they are not needed. When people hear waterfall they think of a pure methodology, when in practise the methodology nearly always will be (and was) sacrificed if the need arises. So as we are discussing a thing we do in practise, we shouldn't discuss it as a theoretical framework in the vacuum of space, but as something that will be (a)bused in reality. As a film guy I am a big fan of clear up-front planing (you probably know some of the things that go into films, treatments, scripts, story-boards, concept art, ...) A film is very waterfall-y in how it is produced. But good directors maintain their flexibility on set by maintaining a balance in how serious they take the script on set and where other solutions present themselves that are a thousand times better, e.g. because the location/the actors or whatever is more striking than any writer could have imagined etc.
- hnfong 3y ago
  A term has a meaning, and the fact that people don't actually practice it doesn't mean you can just change what it means. > A film is very waterfall-y in how it is produced. But good directors maintain their flexibility on set by Right. So they don't stick strictly with waterfall, even though the industry tends to be "waterfall-y". My understanding is that in some (non-software) industries, waterfall is practiced because you really can't go back and change things. Or maybe you could, but it would mean increased cost and delays to the extent that you might as well have started all over. There was a time when people thought "software engineering" was really engineering, so you had to follow traditional engineering best practices. eg. Do it right the first time, make plans and stick with them. It just turns out that this doesn't work for software, and as you said, nobody is really stupid enough to do strictly that now.
BoxFour 3y ago
> waterfall does mean exactly that by definition Hilariously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model#Royce's_final_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model#Royce's_final_...

by hnben 3y ago

rramadass 3y ago

> but waterfall does mean exactly that by definition No. This article The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC gives you the details (archive version since the site seems to be down) - https://archive.is/jbBta https://archive.is/jbBta

atoav 3y ago

The question is whether any of the "classical" examples for waterfall project managements out there didn't iterate at all. Having iterations is not incompatible with waterfall per se. E.g. you can plan to have 3 prototypes and then one final product beforehand. You can also decide to skip project phases if they are not needed. When people hear waterfall they think of a pure methodology, when in practise the methodology nearly always will be (and was) sacrificed if the need arises. So as we are discussing a thing we do in practise, we shouldn't discuss it as a theoretical framework in the vacuum of space, but as something that will be (a)bused in reality. As a film guy I am a big fan of clear up-front planing (you probably know some of the things that go into films, treatments, scripts, story-boards, concept art, ...) A film is very waterfall-y in how it is produced. But good directors maintain their flexibility on set by maintaining a balance in how serious they take the script on set and where other solutions present themselves that are a thousand times better, e.g. because the location/the actors or whatever is more striking than any writer could have imagined etc.

hnfong 3y ago
A term has a meaning, and the fact that people don't actually practice it doesn't mean you can just change what it means. > A film is very waterfall-y in how it is produced. But good directors maintain their flexibility on set by Right. So they don't stick strictly with waterfall, even though the industry tends to be "waterfall-y". My understanding is that in some (non-software) industries, waterfall is practiced because you really can't go back and change things. Or maybe you could, but it would mean increased cost and delays to the extent that you might as well have started all over. There was a time when people thought "software engineering" was really engineering, so you had to follow traditional engineering best practices. eg. Do it right the first time, make plans and stick with them. It just turns out that this doesn't work for software, and as you said, nobody is really stupid enough to do strictly that now.

BoxFour 3y ago

> waterfall does mean exactly that by definition Hilariously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model#Royce's_final_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model#Royce's_final_...