|
Today, talking about doing a big design up-front (BDUF) sounds a bit ridiculous, right? Who would do that? That's not craftsmanship, is it? It was the best of software development, it was the worst of software development
|
|
|
|
|
Just so you know, C# is better than whatever language you use.
|
|
|
|
|
And on the eighth day, G-d created Anders Hejlsberg.
--------------
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I use C# - is it better than that?
- Life in the fast lane is only fun if you live in a country with no speed limits.
- Of all the things I have lost, it is my mind that I miss the most.
- I vaguely remember having a good memory...
|
|
|
|
|
I worked on TDD. That is how the military does all thier designs, and it creates horrible weapon systems. The Abrams tank was a gas guzzler that had a horrible impact on tank battalions since they had to not only have new specialists to work only on the tank engines, but also more fuel trucks. There was a movie on how bad the Bradley was. Now look at the new F-35 (should change the name of the Lockheed to Junkers {original company was absorbed into Messerschmitt}). The one of the most significant problems with TDD is that there is no feedback loop. The government will tell you that if you do not meet the specification you are not meeting the contract. Costs just keep going up to try to meet requirements that should be dumped. The American planes and tanks of WWII were not built this way. Almost every truely successful project was agile. Software is no different.
|
|
|
|
|
On the Abrams: I was once told that when they fired the big gun that they often had a full power outage and the onboard computers got restarted. Is that true?
--------------
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Another interesting thing is that the Leopard, which was being considered as the next American tank had a smoothbore 120mm gun. I believe the new development was partially justified because it stayed with the old 105, but the first upgrade had the german 120. I also heard that the Leopard option was discarded because it was considered too wide. It took a while to figure out where the justification came from: There was some obscure requirement for the size limit, something like transport on a particular ship. Both tanks are really too wide for a lot of transport. Also the highly regarded turbine engine still is costing the US taxpayer and the Army: http://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
