News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Individuals Matter by rramadass on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @03:46AM (#29238347)
Absolutely Categorically Wrong!

This has been so endlessly repeated without thought that people assume it is a fact when the Truth is far from it.

Excerpts from wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model ;

* In 1983 the paper was republished with a foreword by Benington explaining that the phases were on purpose organised according to the specialisation of tasks, and pointing out that the process was not in fact performed in a strict top-down fashion, but depended on a prototype.

* Royce's five additional steps (which included writing complete documentation at various stages of development) never took mainstream hold, but his diagram of what he considered a flawed process became the starting point when describing a "waterfall" approach.

* In 1985, the United States Department of Defense captured this approach in DOD-STD-2167A[citation needed], their standards for working with software development contractors, which stated that "the contractor shall implement a software development cycle that includes the following six phases: Software Requirement Analysis, Preliminary Design, Detailed Design, Coding and Unit Testing, Integration, and Testing.

The "Waterfall" is what is imagined as a "Ideal and Rational" process (see D.L.Parnas' paper A Rational Design Process: How and Why to Fake it for motivation - https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6312940). The stages in the model and the issues to be considered in each stage are what is important NOT their order. In practice it was always a iterative spiral model described by Barry Boehm - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_model

Re:Individuals Matter by alfiedotwtf on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @04:15AM (#29238514)
Maybe you've never done big government contracts.
Re:Individuals Matter by rramadass on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @04:42AM (#29238682)
Totally irrelevant and no Ad Hominem please.

FYI, D.L.Parnas and Barry Boehm defined the field of Software Engineering. Almost all Govt./DoD standards are based on their research and writings.

Re:Individuals Matter by alfiedotwtf on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @05:40AM (#29239020)
TIL: "Winston W. Royce's final model, his intended improvement upon his initial "waterfall model", illustrated that feedback could (should, and often would) lead from code testing to design (as testing of code uncovered flaws in the design) and from design back to requirements specification (as design problems may necessitate the removal of conflicting or otherwise unsatisfiable / undesignable requirements)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model#Modified_water...

Interesting because that's definitely not what's taught in the handful of Software Engineering books I've read, and steps backward are not canon (rather, they're called something besides Waterfall i.e Spiral or Iterative).

Looking at that page again, it looks like what I describe is called "pure waterfall".

Re:Individuals Matter by mattm on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @09:19AM (#29240779)
This is a good article on the topic http://www.bawiki.com/wiki/Waterfall.html
Re:Individuals Matter by rramadass on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @11:30AM (#29242484)
That is indeed a Great Writeup!

Instead of getting lost in the comments, You should post it to HN and invite discussions with a title like "Most of what you have heard about the Waterfall Development Model is Wrong!" or "How the Agile folks have misled you about the Waterfall Development Model" :-)

Re:Individuals Matter by rramadass on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @11:57AM (#29242927)
Most books on Software Engineering are mere compendiums with nothing much to recommend them eg. the texts by Sommerville or Pressman. Two exceptions that i know of are those by Ghezzi,Jazayeri,Mandrioli and Pankaj Jalote.