this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
748 points (93.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

21106 readers
1045 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
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days 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.

[–] aghastghast@programming.dev 35 points 3 days 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.

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

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 41 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Davin@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days 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@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That's why testing comes before launching.

[–] madjo@feddit.nl 7 points 2 days 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!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 133 points 3 days ago (6 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.

[–] MechanicalJester@lemmy.world 40 points 3 days ago

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

[–] CidVicious@sh.itjust.works 21 points 3 days 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."

[–] idefix@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 67 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Seems like the author has never programmed anything

[–] camelbeard@lemmy.world 86 points 3 days ago (2 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@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago

This is the perfect waterfall analogy.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

This is the way

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 3 days ago

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

[–] tyler@programming.dev 14 points 3 days ago (4 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 156 points 4 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 76 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Old man yells at cloud these damn Americans using "ironic" when they mean "sarcastic"

[–] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 14 hours ago

Sarcasm is a type of irony.

[–] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days 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...

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 days ago

Yeah, it requires replacing the "you test the rocket" with "you test the rocket and it fails or doesn't meet the updated mission specifications" and the "you go to mars" with "you want to go to mars"

[–] mdhughes@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 2 days 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.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 96 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

And it turns out the customer actually needed a blender

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This is why I always act as if neither exists

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 73 points 3 days 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
[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 44 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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
[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days 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.
[–] ToxicWaste@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days 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...

[–] madjo@feddit.nl 3 points 2 days 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!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RizzoTheSmall@lemm.ee 41 points 3 days 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MTK@lemmy.world 56 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days 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)
[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 44 points 3 days 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.

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 35 points 3 days ago

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

[–] makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world 42 points 4 days 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

[–] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 19 points 4 days ago

Kiiiinda true but only with boomer-era on-disk printed at a factory Waterfall. Also everything after agile is just copium for an over professionalized world in which craftsmanship itself had given way, undermining the very concept of expertise so everything is junior devs and now ai

[–] rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Scrum is about transparency, not intransparency for a month

[–] mmddmm@lemm.ee 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kambusha@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Seems biased... What's that logo they're trying to hide in the top-right?

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 12 points 3 days ago

Must be OP trying to hide it, Toggl displayed it proudly. The author used to work for Toggl marketing and ask can be seen from this post, did an excellent job. He still has a webcomic, it's just not marketing for Toggl anymore. Here it is

As for bias - it's a time tracking tool, but I don't think they actually shill for waterfall, I think it's just poking fun at the agile methodologies.

load more comments
view more: next ›