You raise some valid points but as I mentioned earlier, with each back and forth we get further and further from the point. I could certainly respond with the parts that I disagree with but it's getting to the point that it's becoming tedious. We're way past the initial point and I can't see the benefit.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Even if DNA testing were to prove that it is not in fact a duck, it would still share similarities to a duck in both look and sound. If you can't see the similarities then you can't see the similarities. C'est la vie.
Just because something has feathers does not mean it is a duck; it could just be a pillow. Again, you have not pointed to a single case that shows what design methodology either Google or Apple uses. Your one attempt of using iOS was completely destroyed as being a very poor example and completely disproven as a reliable indicator.
Just because something has feathers does not mean it is a duck; it could just be a pillow. Again, you have not pointed to a single case that shows what design methodology either Google or Apple uses. Your one attempt of using iOS was completely destroyed as being a very poor example and completely disproven as a reliable indicator.
Actually, your "destroying" of my argument was you destroying a strawman which became clear when you said, "you your yourself would require Apple to be using Agile" which is a completely false statement. When posters start doing things like that I tend to stop responding. I'm not here to participate in such things.
Actually, your "destroying" of my argument was you destroying a strawman which became clear when you said, "you your yourself would require Apple to be using Agile" which is a completely false statement. When posters start doing things like that I tend to stop responding. I'm not here to participate in such things.
In short, you know nothing about software design methodologies, software life cycles and deliveries. Thanks for playing.
Comments
You raise some valid points but as I mentioned earlier, with each back and forth we get further and further from the point. I could certainly respond with the parts that I disagree with but it's getting to the point that it's becoming tedious. We're way past the initial point and I can't see the benefit.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Even if DNA testing were to prove that it is not in fact a duck, it would still share similarities to a duck in both look and sound. If you can't see the similarities then you can't see the similarities. C'est la vie.
Just because something has feathers does not mean it is a duck; it could just be a pillow. Again, you have not pointed to a single case that shows what design methodology either Google or Apple uses. Your one attempt of using iOS was completely destroyed as being a very poor example and completely disproven as a reliable indicator.
Just because something has feathers does not mean it is a duck; it could just be a pillow. Again, you have not pointed to a single case that shows what design methodology either Google or Apple uses. Your one attempt of using iOS was completely destroyed as being a very poor example and completely disproven as a reliable indicator.
Actually, your "destroying" of my argument was you destroying a strawman which became clear when you said, "you your yourself would require Apple to be using Agile" which is a completely false statement. When posters start doing things like that I tend to stop responding. I'm not here to participate in such things.
In short, you know nothing about software design methodologies, software life cycles and deliveries. Thanks for playing.
In short, you know nothing about software design methodologies, software life cycles and deliveries. Thanks for playing.
When the conversation devolves into strawman arguments and personal attacks you know it's run its course.
www.yoursmartmoney.net