Waterfall - iterative development methodology
Hello.
Recently I discovered an interesting fact that Comrade Winston D. Royce, announcing his famous Waterfall, spoke about an iterative model of development.
Surely, everyone who is at least somehow connected with the development / testing of software knows about the cascade model and its features:
- high level of process formalization;
- a large amount of documentation;
- and of course, a rigid sequence of life cycle stages without the possibility of returning to the previous stage.
')
After reading an excerpt from the works of Royce, it turned out that he provided for feedback between the stages at the same level (for example, design coding, coding testing, etc.).
As far as I understand the difference, in the second version, unlike the first, we are talking about parallel work in two successive stages, which makes it possible at earlier stages to detect errors of the previous stage of the life cycle and solves one of the weighty drawbacks of the “classical” waterfall - the impossibility of returning on the previous stage.
For example, if we consider parallel work on 2 consecutive phases - Coding and Testing, it becomes obvious that a part of the program is being issued for testing, while the other part is still at the development stage.
Those. it turns out that this really is an iterative software development methodology.
In this case, the question remains as to why the methodology is mistaken in a wide circle of developers and testers, as shown in the first picture ...
Excerpt from the works of Winston:
Royce, Winston (1970), "Managing the Development of Large Software Systems"
Recently I discovered an interesting fact that Comrade Winston D. Royce, announcing his famous Waterfall, spoke about an iterative model of development.
Surely, everyone who is at least somehow connected with the development / testing of software knows about the cascade model and its features:
- high level of process formalization;
- a large amount of documentation;
- and of course, a rigid sequence of life cycle stages without the possibility of returning to the previous stage.
')
After reading an excerpt from the works of Royce, it turned out that he provided for feedback between the stages at the same level (for example, design coding, coding testing, etc.).
As far as I understand the difference, in the second version, unlike the first, we are talking about parallel work in two successive stages, which makes it possible at earlier stages to detect errors of the previous stage of the life cycle and solves one of the weighty drawbacks of the “classical” waterfall - the impossibility of returning on the previous stage.
For example, if we consider parallel work on 2 consecutive phases - Coding and Testing, it becomes obvious that a part of the program is being issued for testing, while the other part is still at the development stage.
Those. it turns out that this really is an iterative software development methodology.
In this case, the question remains as to why the methodology is mistaken in a wide circle of developers and testers, as shown in the first picture ...
Excerpt from the works of Winston:
Royce, Winston (1970), "Managing the Development of Large Software Systems"
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/142023/
All Articles