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

21–30 of 172 posts

Re: We've invented waterfall

#21

Post by bigohms »

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.

Can we see a link to your LinkedIn profile?

Re: We've invented waterfall

#22

Post by goldmab »

ctdonath wrote: post #14

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, "a…

It sounds like you're saying something similar to this: http://www.developerdotstar.com/mag/articles/reeves_design.h...

Re: We've invented waterfall

#26

Post by pingswept »

goldmab wrote: post #15
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?

Most of us would probably agree that their method is worse than more modern methods, but spending time making fun of them is like making fun of someone for driving an old car. You could be working on your startup right now.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#27

Post by absconditus »

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.

If one reads the paper most commonly cited as the source of the waterfall methodology he or she will discover that the author of the paper recommends doing something akin to prototyping before designing the real program. The paper is actually a critique of the process now commonly referred to as waterfall and the author does not recommend using the process as first presented in the critique.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#29

Post by haasted »

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…

The ridiculous aspect of this page is the quote "We've invented a development process tbat's completely unique in the industry.", after which they describe a process that looks entirely like waterfall. It's an entertaining fallacy.
Post reply on HN