this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
727 points (93.6% liked)

Programmer Humor

21016 readers
3135 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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

TBF the analogy is especially strained for that one. Per another commenter, Boeing actually makes rockets with waterfall, but test-driven only really makes sense for software, where making local changes is easy but managing complexity is hard.

Edit: Actually, there's even software where it doesn't work well. A lot of scientific-type computing is hard to check until it's run all the way through.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

That's where digital twin engineering HOPES to bridge the gap.

There is definitely a contium of how long it takes to build and test changes where increasly abstract design makes more and more sense vs the send it model

[–] [email protected] 40 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

These are all accurate, except the first Waterfall one, who also doesn't go to Mars.

[–] Davin 24 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] keropoktasen 8 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

That's why testing comes before launching.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 12 hours ago

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!

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 1 points 13 hours ago

So, we need waterfall testing to be separated?

[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Seems like the author has never programmed anything

[–] camelbeard 83 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BlameTheAntifa 31 points 1 day ago

This is the perfect waterfall analogy.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 22 hours ago

I'm glad I'm not alone. I couldn't make sense of this comic.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

You’re right I haven’t heard of that model, but NASA has documented pretty well that it follows waterfall. https://appel.nasa.gov/2018/11/27/spotlight-on-lessons-learned-aligning-system-development-models-with-insight-approaches/

[–] qevlarr 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

You can assume people here know what waterfall and the V model are.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 4 points 13 hours ago

Depends. I've heard management talk about agile and waterfall, but I've not heard even one manager say V model.

[–] 9point6 127 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 14 hours ago

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.

[–] MechanicalJester 38 points 1 day ago

Waterfall: Spend 10 years compiling written functional and technical requirements. Cancel the program due to budget overrun.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 day ago

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."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

But at least the rocket has an opulent ball room as per the design spec

[–] [email protected] 70 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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
[–] [email protected] 6 points 18 hours ago (2 children)
  • 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.
[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago

I've seen so many companies force Agile without changing the management layer and style. Setting deadlines while demanding that teams work Agile. Insanity!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago

That’s what we use in my company: a series of mini waterfalls

[–] SlopppyEngineer 44 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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
[–] [email protected] 150 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Yeah, but waterfall requires that management knows what they want. It's impossible!

[–] Windex007 73 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago

I don't think that they were being ironic....

[–] AlternatePersonMan 23 points 1 day ago

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...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 94 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They forgot the bit where the Waterfall method blew through the budget and deadline about five times over.

[–] criss_cross 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

And it turns out the customer actually needed a blender

[–] SpaceNoodle 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This is why I always act as if neither exists

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Scrum is about transparency, not intransparency for a month

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Scrum is not about any of the things that Scrum proponents claim it's about.

Specifically, it's not about agility, it's not about velocity, it's not about quality, it's not about including the "customer", and it's only about a kind of transparency that has absolutely no impact on the final product.

But yeah, it's about some kind of transparency.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Specifically, you would have to put in effort to be more wrong.

Go read the scrum manifest.

In reality, companies always adapt for what they think suits them. Very rarely do you actually use scrum completely as intended, that's fine. But you don't blame the cow when the cook burned your steak. You blame the cook.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, Scrum has a manifesto now? Where is it?

Or you meant the Agile manifesto, that Scrum breaks half the items and does nothing about the other half?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

Perhaps poorly translated, they call it the scrum guide in English

https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html

I don't know what parts you are talking about since you're not specific.

Furthermore. Kanban is just a method of keeping track of who does what and what the progress of that is. You can use kanban in waterfall. You can use kanban in scrum. No one is just using kanban and nothing else. As your post seems to think.

[–] MTK 56 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Oh yes, everyone know that waterfall works and the rest sucks, nice

[–] [email protected] 4 points 13 hours ago

A good team can make any of these strategies work. A bad team will make a mockery out of them all. Most teams are neither good or bad, and stumble forward, or backwards, doing the motions

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Agile Development here is the same result I’ve experienced for every one of these methods. Mostly because of clients/management.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 day ago

That's why agile was created. Because people don't know what they want in panel 1.

[–] makeshiftreaper 42 points 1 day ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›