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.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days 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