Talk:Big Design Up Front

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Inavlid Assumptions[edit]

A problem with BDUF is that invalid assumptions can easily get into the design, and when coding these invalid assumptions are found and create a major "uh, oh" that could scrap a large project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Pure POV[edit]

(Despite I'm in the "BDUF sucks" camp), this article is pure POV.

Yes, this page has little neutrality. "If the 'cost of planning' is greater then the 'cost of fixing' then time spent planning is wasted." According to whom? It assumes that cost is the only function of value. Or even in cost terms, planning and fixing are not the only cost factors.

Can this be rewritten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Since error correction is the most error prone activity that humans engage in, it gets a little tricky to evaluate "the cost of fixing".

Msilves (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Useless sources[edit]

There are 2 ref's in the "Arguments for Big Design Up Front" section. They both, IMO, do not pass VERIFY. Here they are:

  • "A 20 page spec for a 3 month project is a great thing! But it's not BDUF, it's SDUF" Rich Rogers[1]
  • "Unfortunately, looking at his spec., it seems to bear little relation to the type of BDUF that XP (extreme programming) and other agile programmers inveigh against." Curt Sampson[2]

-- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)