I work on systems where we're responsible for millions of pounds to an accuracy of several decimal places, working for tens of thousands of customers.
And I totally agree with him.
If you think you can have total control over any system then you are asking for disaster.
We moved over to Agile development a couple of years ago, and we produce better software, faster, than we ever did when trying to specify everything in advance.
There's a place for total control - I believe that NASA have that kind of budget and tolerance. But unless you're talking about that kind of system, and are willing to spend that kind of cash, then you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
I think the article's very interesting and the comments are generally of a high standard, but my aside wasn't about the technical aspects of the argument. It's about these two incongruous statements: the first is inflamatory, the second "peace". Guaranteed to wind people up.
And yes - having gone and re-read the article (which I originally read a few days ago, my fuzzy memory then caused my misreading) and the comments, I'm in total agreement with you. The commenter is just going to cause drama.
Comments 5
And I totally agree with him.
If you think you can have total control over any system then you are asking for disaster.
We moved over to Agile development a couple of years ago, and we produce better software, faster, than we ever did when trying to specify everything in advance.
There's a place for total control - I believe that NASA have that kind of budget and tolerance. But unless you're talking about that kind of system, and are willing to spend that kind of cash, then you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
Reply
Reply
And yes - having gone and re-read the article (which I originally read a few days ago, my fuzzy memory then caused my misreading) and the comments, I'm in total agreement with you. The commenter is just going to cause drama.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment