Re:Fear of over-engineering has killed engineering altogether
by colechristensen on Friday July 26, 2024 @01:07PM
(#41080282)
>Waterfall in software was continuously changing those fundamental parts. You'd be fine tuning the irrigation and needed to destruct the whole bridge because some new requirements came up.
Exactly this same thing also happens in non-software "waterfall" projects as well. Mid-project fundamental requirements changes which result in having to re-engineer large parts of the project. This is one of the reasons military acquisitions are so expensive, there's a huge problem with requirements changes.
Re:Fear of over-engineering has killed engineering altogether
by com on Friday July 26, 2024 @02:02PM
(#41080768)
And thus us why large-scale construction companies can bid so low, because most of their revenue and profit come from the inevitable scope and requirements changes later in the projects.
Re:Fear of over-engineering has killed engineering altogether
by janpieterz on Saturday July 27, 2024 @12:29AM
(#41084465)
Perhaps to some degree, but I've never seen a skyscraper that was almost done being torn down to be re-architected and rebuilt.
Waterfall in software was continuously changing those fundamental parts. You'd be fine tuning the irrigation and needed to destruct the whole bridge because some new requirements came up. That's where the anti-Gantt and "bad waterfall" comes from, the reality is the software world as a whole moves way quicker and requirements are way more malleable, subjective than building a bridge.