Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We've invented waterfall

epicenterconsulting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 172 posts

Re: We've invented waterfall

#11

Post by AndrewDucker »

brd wrote: post #9

Its really not quite as bad as it looks at first glance. Step 2: "we design an interactive prototype" allows them to get the feedback that really makes more agile methods work. You don't need to constantly iterate during development if you iterate properly during prototyping. I certainly wouldn't advocate this method but its not a vanilla waterfall method.

Agreed - this isn't as poisonous as the usual waterfall techniques are.

And frankly, if you're working on a massive project that has strict requirements (either regulatory or functional) then up-front analysis has a lot going for it.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#12

Post by tpatke »

Meh. This is hardly the most ridiculous thing I have seen on the internet. I am sure this methodology will work sometimes for some clients. Heck, I bet a lot of startups here on HackerNews are using similar methodologies - but without the early usability testing. If nothing else, at least this company are differentiating themselves. Haven't seen a lot of other consultancies get posted up here on HackerNews.

Every project is different. We should try and not be too dogmatic about these things.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#14

Post by ctdonath »

Few seem to realize that source code is but the most thorough "blueprint" of the product. That compilation - to wit construction of the actual product from the blueprint - is nigh unto instant and free means everyone overlooks it as the actual construction process, akin to actually building a bridge from detailed plans (except you get one shot at building a bridge, while you can recompile every few minutes). Ergo, "analysis", at greatest detail, _is_ coding. That we iterate so much comes from the continued newness of the technology and the relative complexity of the products; bridges are well-understood and iterating the design of one is minimal.

To the site's point (or missing thereof), the notion of "don't start coding until the analysis is complete" is a gross misunderstanding that coding IS analysis.

The inanity of reinventing the waterfall model is obvious to HN readers.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#15

Post by goldmab »

tpatke wrote: post #12

Meh. This is hardly the most ridiculous thing I have seen on the internet. I am sure this methodology will work sometimes for some clients. Heck, I bet a lot of startups here on HackerNews are using similar methodologies - but without the early usability testing. If nothing else, at least this company are differentiating themselves. Haven't seen a lot of other consultancies get posted up here on HackerNews. Every pro…

This was posted on HN so that we can make fun of it, and I think we're right to do so. You can be as wishy washy as you like about different situations requiring different processes, but have you ever seen somebody successfully isolate software engineering from coding and put them in sequence?

Re: We've invented waterfall

#16

Post by donw »

mrcharles wrote: post #10
karmajunkie wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, link to their "Chief Software Architect" linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1613224

Dude has a six year gap in his resume where he goes from being a web designer to chief architect? That might explain why he thinks waterfall is new.

All of his (their?) work appears to be small-scale websites for small companies -- it doesn't look like he's built anything really substantial.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#17

Post by Zarathust »

tpatke wrote: post #12

Meh. This is hardly the most ridiculous thing I have seen on the internet. I am sure this methodology will work sometimes for some clients. Heck, I bet a lot of startups here on HackerNews are using similar methodologies - but without the early usability testing. If nothing else, at least this company are differentiating themselves. Haven't seen a lot of other consultancies get posted up here on HackerNews. Every pro…

I agree with you. After a few years in the field, I'm now convinced that it is how most software is made. Even in the "Agile" startups and such, processes are often implemented as waterfall, or large parts of projects comply with the waterfall model.

While it fails sometimes, there are plenty of success stories about the waterfall model, like it or not.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#18

Post by ctdonath »

brd wrote: post #9

Its really not quite as bad as it looks at first glance. Step 2: "we design an interactive prototype" allows them to get the feedback that really makes more agile methods work. You don't need to constantly iterate during development if you iterate properly during prototyping. I certainly wouldn't advocate this method but its not a vanilla waterfall method.

That they insert what amounts to a single early design iteration hardly rescues the inanity of "hey! I sliced bread! this is awesome!"

Re: We've invented waterfall

#19

Post by tintin »

davidu wrote: post #4

This doesn't look like a joke. Dangerous. Anyone who has done this methodology runs screaming for an exit after a failed project or two.

Not so fast. This isn't something new or strange at all. We are doing this for years with great success.

But maybe you know this method as these steps (which are the same): Concept -> Functional design -> Graphic design -> Building -> Testing -> Deploy.

Nothing strange about that. Take a look at the IBM Rational Unified Process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Rational_Unified_Process

I just think this is a hyped site trying to sell there book.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#20

Post by manuscreationis »

Doesn't look as terrible as "true" waterfall, but I think this is just marketing fluff to win people over by telling them about your rock-solid practices.

If they have an arrow that looped from Beta Testing back into Interface Design/Usability/Engineering/Coding, you'd probably end up with what most shops do anyways, speaking in broad strokes.

Post reply on HN