this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
477 points (89.3% liked)

Technology

60033 readers
3216 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

We all knew it

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 40 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Pbpbpbp...agile fails fast by design.

The counter from the article is you need a specification first, and if you reveal the system wasn't going to work during requirements gathering and architecture, then it didn't count as a failure.

However, in my experience, architects are vastly over priced resources and specifications cost you almost as much as the rest of the project due to it.

TLDR...it's a shit article that confuses fail fast with failure.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

Thanks for pointing that out so I didn't have to.

What's the alternative? Waterfail?

Yeah because business requirements and technology is changing at an ever slower rate...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

Fail fast is the whole point and the beauty of agile. Better to meet with clients early and understand if a project is even workable rather than dedicating a bunch of resources to it up front and then finding out six months in (once the sunk cost fallacy has become too powerful)