4 ms·

Waterfall with short iteration time is not possible by definition. You might as well say agile is still waterfall, what are sprints if not waterfall with a 2 w

• makeitdouble 11mo ago
  Just as most agile projects aren't Agile, most waterfall projects weren't strict Waterfall as it was preached. That being said, when for instance you had a project that should take 2 years and involve a dozen team, you'd try to cut it in 3 or 4 phases, to even if it would only be "released" and fully tested at the end of it all. At least if your goal was to have it see the light in a reasonable time frame. Where I worked we also did integration runs at given checkpoints to be able to iron out issues earlier in the process. PS: on agile, the main specificity I'm seeing is the ability to infinitely extend a project as the scope and specs are typically set on the go. Which is a feature if you're a contractor for a project. you can't do that with waterfall. Most shops have a mix of pre-planning and on-the go specing to get a realistic process.
• RealityVoid 11mo ago
  > Waterfall with short iteration time is not possible by definition. What definition would that be? Regardless, at this point it's all semantics. What I care about is how you do stuff, not the label you assign and in my book writing specs to ground the LLM is a good idea. And I don't even like specs, but in this instance, it works.