Comments on: Specs, waterfalls, terminal completeness http://www.ourada.org/blog/archives/136?&owa_medium=feed&owa_sid= Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:37:54 -0800 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Steven http://www.ourada.org/blog/archives/136/comment-page-1#comment-850 Steven Sat, 08 Apr 2006 06:34:03 +0000 http://www.ourada.org/blog/archives/136#comment-850 Good question; I'll have to look that up. 'cuz I actually think that method is more defensible, practically speaking, than many others. I suppose XP (http://www.extremeprogramming.org/) and similar methods can be likened to that approach. Then there's the school that says that the running code _is_ the specification; I can agree with that position to a degree too. Good question; I’ll have to look that up. ‘cuz I actually think that method is more defensible, practically speaking, than many others.

I suppose XP (http://www.extremeprogramming.org/) and similar methods can be likened to that approach. Then there’s the school that says that the running code _is_ the specification; I can agree with that position to a degree too.

]]> By: Allanimal http://www.ourada.org/blog/archives/136/comment-page-1#comment-849 Allanimal Sat, 08 Apr 2006 06:00:53 +0000 http://www.ourada.org/blog/archives/136#comment-849 In my world, I tend to write the program, get everything working just right, and then some QA guy says that there needs to be a spec, according to some other qaulity spec (QXYZ 123498). So then we write the spec, based on how the actual program works, rather than the other way around. Wonder if there is a name for that development method.? In my world, I tend to write the program, get everything working just right, and then some QA guy says that there needs to be a spec, according to some other qaulity spec (QXYZ 123498). So then we write the spec, based on how the actual program works, rather than the other way around.

Wonder if there is a name for that development method.?

]]>