Talk:Waterfall model/Archives/2015
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Waterfall model. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Controversy
Controversy[edit] Although many references to the waterfall model exist, and while many methodologies could be qualified as 'modified' waterfall, the key aspect of waterfall as being a non-iterative process, and lack of citations regarding the actual use of such a non-iterative waterfall model have made one critic,[17] among many, pose the thesis that the waterfall model itself, as a non-iterative development methodology, is in fact a myth and a straw-man argument used purely to advocate alternative development methodologies.
I write novels (4 of them). I've written reams of user manuals. I've read dozens of books on computer programming, (I'm a 30 year programmer.) It is my semi professional opinion that the above section, titled 'Controversy,' is nearly all gibberish and virtually indecipherable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.33.25 (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Be WP:BOLD and remove it. It does appear to be rambling. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
EITVOX criteria not been talked both in Waterfall Model & modified Waterfall Model
Entry, Input, Task, Validation, Output, Exit criteria is very standard one whether it is Waterfall Model or any Modern modified Waterfall Model. This needs to be discussed in a generic nature, in both of the page Waterfall Model and Modified Waterfall Models regardless whether it gets into any specific development model page or not,- as AI - Artificial Intelligence involved nowadays rather not by any human effort in which not all its counterparts of EITVOX has a criteria as its logistics is in a quantum ride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansathas (talk • contribs) 06:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Leprechauns of Software Development research into the history
I found this interesting. It's samples from a book in progress about how to apply skepticism to claims in software engineering. One of the sample chapters is a worked example of debunking the origin myths (for and against are both myths) of the waterfall development methodology. [1] The author does some research, complete with citation graphs for the original paper. Probably not ready to use as a source itself, but a good pointer for what to research for a good wikipedia summary - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)