Hacker News Reader

It would be even more wasteful to build a stack, then even if it didn't work / new features needed to be added / old cruft needed to be removed / new devices and services need to be supported, just keep using and developing that stack.

It's called agile development, and it lets them respond quickly and efficiently to changes in requirements / mission.

See also: Facebook, Twitter, most other tech companies.

View on HN

That's fine but the first iterations were because they fucked the requirements up. Regardless of Agile/not, due diligence when selecting products or deciding to write them is required.

Requirements, especially in government, will change quite quickly whatever you do, so I'd argue that fast agile development is more beneficial and cost-effective than slower development cycles.

Can you expand? Can you give an example of requirements changing quickly or frequently in government? Given that they're constrained mostly by budget and legislation I'd argue the opposite.

That notwithstanding, I'd also be very interested to know how agile is a panacea to fast-changing requirements, especially as opposed to techniques such as designing for change (at the architectural level, so not just the implementation level, i.e. loose coupling, encapsulation and abstraction interfaces).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com