Hacker News Reader

Comment by bilekas | Hacker News Reader

> I don't see it as a bad thing as long as all sides are aware that changing requirements changes the deadline as wel

It's extremely dangerous, and software is quite comparable to a bridge. Imagine starting at both sides of the river and the bridge not meeting in the middle.

Changin requirements / features is very simular. And while on paper it sound like no problem, thats when you need to push back against your PO/Whoever is pushing the change.

View on HN

They are building a bridge over the river near me. Headlines a month ago where that the two ends were within half and inch (1.25cm) of each other - which was considered the best possible case. Last year the bridge contractor build a dozen different adapters plates so cover all possible mismatches so that construction wouldn't slow down when the two ends got close enough together that they could tell how far off they were. (the bridge was supposed to open 5 months ago, but that is a different story...)

I'm not sure what the point is, but it somehow fits into yours...

Yes, there are some analogs to bridges, but software is much more flexible than concrete.

We can pretend we're building a bridge, but there could be another company, that is more comfortable with changing requirements and may deliver their product later, but more suited to a market.

Software isn't more flexible than concrete.

Software looks as if it should be more flexible than concrete.

But it really isn't.

Only some software is that flexible, and then that flexibility will end with the end of support time.

Ultimately all software becomes very inflexible if you cannot get the source code or especially flash firmware.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com