Talk:Big design up front

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

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 64.128.133.66 (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 66.119.170.242 (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The link to the comments is unfortunately dead. There's [copy on archive.org] but I don't see technically how to link that in properly while maintaining the original links; I think it needs a different form of citation than the one currently being used there?

Regarding Wikipedia:Verifiability, maybe someone could expand a bit on what's wanted here? I can understand giving less credence to comments than to a blog post, but then again the blog post itself doesn't seem to me to be a "published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Or is it just that the quotes from the comments are not well chosen?

-- Cjs (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Argument "for" not actually relevant[edit]

Why include the comment from Joel Spolsky when he himself admits he's not doing what the article describes as BDUF? That looks like an argument against in disguise. (which helps making this article not NPOV) Nowhere man (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]