Yeah, but waterfall requires that management knows what they want. It's impossible!
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
457 points (94.2% liked)
Programmer Humor
31215 readers
676 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This but unironically
I don't think that they were being ironic....
Old man yells at cloud these damn Americans using "ironic" when they mean "sarcastic"
Sarcasm is a type of irony.
So often it's patience from stakeholders to allow for time to actually design and build the things, or willingness to admit the actual cost, or an impossible grand vision with an unqualified/understaffed team, and of course reprioritizing constantly as if it's easy to resume later without paying ramp up.
Don't get me started on the constant detailed status reports...
Yeah, it requires replacing the "you test the rocket" with "you test the rocket and it fails or doesn't meet the updated mission specifications" and the "you go to mars" with "you want to go to mars"
A software engineer was not involved in this if waterfall is painted positively.
I think the last time I heard an engineer unironically advocating for a waterfall IRL was about a decade ago and they were the one of the crab-in-a-bucket, I-refuse-to-learn-anything-new types—with that being the very obvious motivation for their push-back.
Waterfall: Spend 10 years compiling written functional and technical requirements. Cancel the program due to budget overrun.
Yeah, waterfall would be "you collect requirements to build a rocket to Mars, 2 years later you have a rocket to Venus and it turns out they didn't think oxygen is essential, they'll have to add that in the next major release."
And here I am, running projects for the past 20 years mostly using agile, and still very much unconvinced about its supposed superiority over waterfall.
I know several who preferred waterfall, but the system I work on is a giant government one and when we were doing waterfall we were in specialist teams working on a small part of the system
At the same time we went agile management also said "everyone can do everything" so we've had to work across the entire system
For the rocket analogy: we started building a rocket under waterfall, but when we went agile we also decided that the rocket motor specialists could also work on fuel tanks and heat shields
load more comments
(2 replies)
They forgot the bit where the Waterfall method blew through the budget and deadline about five times over.
This is why I always act as if neither exists
And it turns out the customer actually needed a blender
Waterfall only works if the programmer knows what the client needs. Usually it goes like:
- Client has a need
- Client describes what they think they need to a salesperson
- Salesperson describes to the product manager what an amazing deal they just made
- Product manager panics and tries to quickly specify the product they think sales just sold
- Developers write the program they think product manager is describing
- The program doesn’t think. It just does whatever buggy mess the programmer just wrote
- The client is disappointed, because the program doesn’t solve their needs
In terms of Mars
- Client wants a robot to go to Mars
- Project is budgeted and sold to send a Mars Rover
- Work starts and after successful test the robot is shown to customer. Customer states he wants to send a Mechwarriors in a drop ship, not a little Pathfinder.
- Panic, change requests, money being discussed, rockets are being strapped together with duct tape and the rover is bolted on an old Asimo that is being rebuilt into the smallest Mechwarrior ever the day before launch
- Mech Asimo lands successfully, stumbles and falls on a rock after three steps
- Customer disappointed
- Eventually Company decides "agile will fix things"
- Developers are told to work agile but the only stakeholder they talk to is the PO, who talks to PM, who talks to Sales, who talks to Customers
- PM&Sales don't want to deliver an unfinished/unpolished product so they give a review every sprint, by themselves, based on what they think the customer wants (they are Very Clever)
- A year or two later the project is delivered and the customer is predictably unhappy.
- Management says "how could this have happened!" and does it all over again.
as someone who has made it through multiple 'agile transformations' in large companies: that's how it usually goes.
however, that is the problem with people being stuck in their way and people afraid of loosing their jobs. PO is usually filled with the previous teamlead (lower management, maybe in charge of 20 ppl). PM & Sales have to start delivering unfinished Products! how else are you going to get customer feedback while you can still cheaply change things? A lot of the middle management has to take something they would perceive as a 'demotion' or find new jobs entirely - who would have guessed that with an entirely new model you cannot map each piece 1:1...
Given these and many more problems i have seen many weird things: circles within circles within circles, many tiny waterfalls... some purists would call SAFE a perversion of agile.
the point is: if you want to go agile, you have to change (who would have thought that slapping a different sticker won't do it?). the change has to start from the top. many companies try to do an 'agile experiment': the whole company is still doing what they do. however, one team does agile now - while still having to deliver in and for the old system...
Oh yes, everyone know that waterfall works and the rest sucks, nice
If the shoe fits ...
load more comments
(3 replies)
More accurately the waterfall mission ends up on Phobos only to have to scramble to figure out how to land on Titan because the customer can't tell the difference between moons
The Agile Development here is the same result I’ve experienced for every one of these methods. Mostly because of clients/management.
That's why agile was created. Because people don't know what they want in panel 1.
What's not covered is the 25 years of R&D in advance of waterfall project starting, or that it's delivered 200% over time and cost due to those requirements being insufficient and based on assumptions that were never or are no longer true.
Seems biased... What's that logo they're trying to hide in the top-right?
Must be OP trying to hide it, Toggl displayed it proudly. The author used to work for Toggl marketing and ask can be seen from this post, did an excellent job. He still has a webcomic, it's just not marketing for Toggl anymore. Here it is
As for bias - it's a time tracking tool, but I don't think they actually shill for waterfall, I think it's just poking fun at the agile methodologies.
Waterfall is more like: You want to go to Mars. You start to build the rocket. Managers that don't know anything about building a rocket starts having meetings to tell the engineers who do know how to build a rocket what they should be doing. Management decides to launch the rocket based on a timeline that's not based in reality. Management tries to launch the rocket based on the timeline instead of when it's actually finished. Rocket explodes. Management blames the engineers.
The various methodologies don't actually change what the engineers need to do. But some of them can be effective at requiring more effort from management to interfere in the project. Bad managers are lazy so they're not going to write a card, so they can be somewhat effective in neutralizing micromanagement. I say somewhat, because bad management will eventually find a way to screw things up.
Seems like the author has never programmed anything
I'm getting pretty old so I have experienced multiple waterfall projects. The comic should be
You want to go to mars You spend 3 months designing a rocket You spend 6 months building a rocket You spend a month testing the rocket and notice there is a critical desing flaw.
You start over again with a new design and work on it for 2 months You spend another 6 months building it You spend 2 months testing
Rocket works fine now, but multiple other companies already have been to Mars, so no need to even go anymore.
This is the perfect waterfall analogy.
This is the way
pretty sure they're saying waterfall for building a rocket because that's literally how NASA builds a rocket, including the software. It's terrible for building anything other than a rocket though, because the stakes aren't high for most other projects, at least not in the way that a critical mistake will be incredibly bad.
i take you have never heard of the V-model. basically you climb the waterfall back up to verify everything. most things that fly within the atmosphere are done that way. pretty sure NASA would do the same.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Test-driven development: You spend all your time building a gizmo to tell you if you're on Mars or not. A week before the deadline you start frantically building a rocket.
Waterfall: Boeing/ULA does this. Their rockets cost $4B per launch, don't work, strand astronauts. Maybe the next repair/test cycle, if management's dumb enough to keep paying them.
Agile at least launches something.
These are all accurate, except the first Waterfall one, who also doesn't go to Mars.
Right. They design the whole rocket, spend years to build the rocket exactly according to the design doc, then the rocket explodes on the launchpad and they have to start all over.
We recently saw waterfall versus agile in actual rockets
Blue Origin spent years meticulously designing their rocket. They tested it on the ground. On the first flight it got to orbit, but the first stage exploded while re-entering
SpaceX started building their rocket out of carbon fibre. Changed to stainless steel. Started flying subscale demos, flew high altitude full scale examples to find if their aerodynamics was right, and haven't actually tried for orbit yet
Blue Origin is trying for a last generation rocket (where the first stage is recovered) but bigger, SpaceX is trying to create the next generation where both stages are recovered
That's why testing comes before launching.
The build phase took too much time, you now have 1 day to test all the features and design elements of the rocket, because launch day is tomorrow. Good luck!
I heard nasa used to do some kind of TDD lol
view more: next ›