4 ms·
>"Design a little, code a little, test a little". That's not waterfall as used in the conventional sense. A key element of waterfall was/is: "Thus the waterfal
by ternaryoperator 13y ago
>"Design a little, code a little, test a little".
That's not waterfall as used in the conventional sense. A key element of waterfall was/is: "Thus the waterfall model maintains that one should move to a phase only when its preceding phase is reviewed and verified."[1]
>The details vary, to be sure, but the fundamentals remain the same.
I disagree. Agile is distincly different at a fundamental level from waterfall. If you walk into a modern shop doing mostly agile with continuous delivery, you'll find that there is almost no process at all that maps directly to waterfall. Literally, not a single one: not design, not coding, not testing, not building, not deploying. They're all fundamentally very different. Coding is probably the one that comes closest and if the site uses TDD or pair programming, it will be clear how drastically different even that is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model
- emmelaich 13y agoPeople should stop using the term waterfall to describe any real process. It's only been used to describe a fictitious cartoon of a process, purely for the sake of their argument. That wikipedia article is a bit of a mess, but read the article at footnote 7: http://www.idinews.com/waterfall.html "There's no such thing as the Waterfall Approach! (and there never was)"
- masomenos 13y agoIf only that were true! My first employer was a large organization that explicitly embraced the waterfall methodology that we all rightfully deride.
- jasonwocky 13y agoThere may have been no capital-W Waterfall approach, but implying that projects weren't routinely being run in a waterfall-esque, staged-handoff fashion smacks of revisionism. I was there. I was on those projects. They existed, and unless everything went perfectly according to plan, they were messes.