(think the Toyota uncommanded acceleration bugs),
I think its dubious to say the least that Waterfall methodology would have predicted or corrected the flaws to which that has been attributed: "Toyota did not follow best practices for real time life critical software, and that a single bit flip which can be caused by cosmic rays could cause unintended acceleration. As well, the run-time stack of the real-time operating system was not large enough and that it was possible for the stack to grow large enough to overwrite data that could cause unintended acceleration". Cross-checking, concurrent redundancy --which is what is being suggested should be required -- can be developed just as well using RAD.
That's more a case of best-practice and legislation lagging in new fields. Drive-by-wire is new technology in road vehicles, and things haven't caught up.
Similarly, dual-circuit brakes on cars didn't become law until circa 1976; and there were still vehicles without on the roads into the 80s.
It's not a failure of development methodology; its failure of the specifications that didn't require cross-checked redundancy. It'll come.
In reply to Re^5: Beyond Agile: Subsidiarity as a Team and Software Design Principle
by BrowserUk
in thread Beyond Agile: Subsidiarity as a Team and Software Design Principle
by einhverfr
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |