I am not so sure I want “Rapid Agile” development for something that literally controls nuclear missiles.
`git commit -m “Fuck fuck fuck, forgot to replace the launch API endpoint with a mock one.”`
Scrum master: “Let’s implement the stuff with the highest customer value first.”
Developer A: “I guess that means being able to launch the nukes.”
Developer B: “Yeah. Auth can come later.”
Developer C: “Nobody answered us about how they want the abort sequence to work. I guess we’ll defer it to the next sprint.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link#Develop...
Hunter/Gatherer , hunter12, Get IT.
lol and ROL. my gentlemen. women. polar bears, whatever.
I approve. Just making a joke.
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/09/2002049591/-1/-1/0/DIB...
The final release of that paper along with other SWAP study publications can be found here[2].
Yet it definitely is designed for that.
I wonder if they ever feels frustrated.
No one will be changing the Nuclear launch systems often where never ending iteration is a threat.
I work in safety critical software, my biggest problem with agile (and other popular development methodologies) has always been that there is too much equivocation and other semantic games by their advocates to turn into something useful to me.
When we have a development tool vendor on site they often ask if we're "waterfall or agile?" I hate this question because the real answer is "neither, but sorta both, and can we just move on because it's not going to fit into your simplistic model of the world?"
One thing that agile solves that introduces the most instability into a project is the ability to constantly alter scope. It takes a lot of good management to make sure that changes in scope don't have secondary or tertiary order effects, that would be my focus for a high reliability agile process.
I mean (man), this is totally RAD.
They're making Star Wars and Star Trek references, so 'rad' is cool too, right?
Or it's an early/late 1st April story.