Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!jls
From: jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Art vs. Engineering
Message-ID: <1991May21.012451.28093@netcom.COM>
Date: 21 May 91 01:24:51 GMT
References: <1991May6.165902.2116@ssd.kodak.com> <35177@athertn.Atherton.COM> <1991May9.155632.29277@mcs.kent.edu> <4565.282e85bd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> <1991May13.185411.7253@netcom.COM> <4637.28380639@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 13

>OK - next comment.  IMHO all "life cycles" contain the waterfall model at
>their most microscopic level: one engineer, one problem, short time scale
>(minutes), good knowledge base, etc.  All other life cycles are constructed of
>the waterfall + feedback with varied deliverables at different time scales.  

No argument. The problem is just that so many lifecycle models generalize from
the microscopic to the macroscopic level, and simply don't work right when
applied to non-trivial problems.
-- 
**************** JIM SHOWALTER, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****************
*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++.    *