Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
<digression> >From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...] >>From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...] >>In fact (in particular from the Extreme Programming point of view), you >>should arguably *always* use it as a model for software development. >>And incrementalism applies well as an approach to lots of other >>activities, too. -Tim >As long as one doesn't have to deliver contractually >specified features (what most winning businesses do), that >works fine. When one doesn't win, the VC capital runs out. Ah, no. I'm an XP programmer, and what XP promises is that the customer will ALWAYS get whatever functionality is most important to them, right away (well, at the end of an "iteration", which is 2 weeks around here). Waterfall development gives you a big-bang creation in some longer period of time... if it doesn't run late, if the design specification is actually what the customer still wants by the end of the development process (which is almost never the case), if the engineers are so inhumanly smart and/or psychic that they can do perfect design up front, if the requirements never change, and if absolutely nothing goes wrong. That any software at all is delivered by waterfall is nothing short of a miracle. XP is primarily concerned with delivering "contractually specified features". It isn't perfect, but small, self-correcting steps are far more accurate than a single aimed shot at a dodging target. Please take the time to actually observe the process, or even just read the books, before making future inaccurate claims. </digression> -- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
|
