Waterfall was bad due to the excessively long feedback loops (months-to-years from "planning" to "customer gets to see it/ we receive feedback on it"). It was NOT bad because it forced people to think before writing code! That part we should recover, it's not problematic at all.

▲

kown7 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

If people actually read the original paper by Royce 1970 they would see that it's an iterative process with short feedback-loops.

The bad rep comes from (defense|gov.) contracting, where PRDs where connected to money and CR were expensive, see http://www.bawiki.com/wiki/Waterfall.html for better details.

▲

paganel 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

When you do most of the thinking before you start implementing the whole thing, and if you think that that's enough, then you've missed the unknown unknowns part, which was a big talking point in the mid 2000s, back when the anti-waterfall discourse got going (and for good reason).

But I expect the AI zealots to start (re-)integrating XProgramming (later rebranded as Agile) back into their workflow, somehow.

	▲	sersi 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Thinking before you start implementing the entire project is doomed to fail. Thinking before you implement each features/user story is usually rather important. A waterfall model with short feedback loops iterating on small tasks is not the worst thing in the world