Kero van Gelder wrote:
If you redo a product, you have learned what it should look like.
Thus, you can specify much more in advance. Nothing wrong with that,
it came out of the feedback loops.
Here's pure Waterfall (phase 2, not 3 of his project):
"7 reasons I switched back to PHP after 2 years on Rails"
http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2007/09/7_reasons_i_switched_back_to_p_1.html
His rewrite bombed because he tried accidentally did it Waterfall-style, so of
course he blamed Rails, and caused a tempest in a teapot in his comments
section. His "2 years on Rails" did not include, say, frequently deploying it...
My rebuttal:
"Big Requirements Up Front"
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2007/09/big_requirements_up_front.html
I'm curious, do you really expect them to go for a rewrite?
"They" were a dot-com in 1999, so we will never know if it could have worked...
(-:
--
Phlip
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
