10 Common Myths about Software Development Debunked
Numbers make sense to accountants. Every word you utter is scrutinized by attorneys. Drug use by rock stars. For each profession, we have a set of expectations that are occasionally stereotypical or even unfounded.
While we can't speak for accountants, attorneys, or rock stars, we can on behalf of software developers. Continue reading to learn how "nerdy and geeky code crunchers" really do their jobs.
Myth 1: Software development is a foreseeable process
We often consider something in more concrete terms when we find it difficult to grasp (because it is abstract or nebulous).
People might believe that creating software is similar to the linear process of building a home from a blueprint. Especially with bespoke software, the goal of software development is to create something that has never been seen before. As a result, providing forecasts that are 100 percent correct is almost difficult. You must consider unpredictability, for example, feature creep, outside market forces, and technological development.
For instance, even though Microsoft's Windows Vista was just meant to be a modest improvement from Windows XP, it took 5 years to build.
Myth 2: Increasing the workforce will hasten manufacturing
Although software cannot be seen, touched, or smelled, people occasionally believe that a typical supply chain would be applicable.
People manage software development projects using standard economics ideas, which is a continuation of the first myth.
Software projects are "complex engineering endeavors," according to the well-known Brooks' rule (from The Mythical Man-Month), and it takes time for employees who are joined to a project later to become fully productive.
Myth 3: The key is coding
This applies to both those who employ software developers and those who contract with them to supply services.
It's excellent to have highly qualified programmers with plenty of expertise in their field, but don't ignore other crucial non-tech requirements. A little amount of commercial awareness, time management, and communication skills never hurt.
People sometimes mistakenly believe that programming simply needs logical and mathematical abilities. In truth, creating software can be an art, particularly when it comes to high-level architecture. Thus, just like novelists and artists, developers can encounter blocks in their writing or spurts of creativity.
Myth 4: There is a software development approach that works like a charm
Anyone who propagates this myth should be avoided. The four most popular methods for creating software are as follows:
Waterfall: Traditional sequential production flow is more rigid than agile, but it is also more predictable.
Agile: delivers usable components as soon as they are available, emphasizing flexibility and gradual improvements.
Lean: adapted from lean manufacturing, which ensures quick delivery, optimal efficiency, and less waste.
Scrum/Kanban: rather than a technique in and of itself, Agile practices.
In actuality, you must constantly strike a balance between time, money, and functionality. Applying the best elements of each methodology or practice is, therefore, the most effective way to minimize trade-offs.
Myth 5: Certificates (badges) attest to the superiority
Similar to how people evaluate credibility in different professions, some people look at how many certifications a person or organization has. In the world of software, this typical method of thinking doesn't work very well.
One, obtaining such credentials without needing to demonstrate skill may be relatively simple.
Two, more accurate measures of quality come from actual project examples.
Three, developers find it challenging to justify the time spent on certification rather than performing real work when they are already very good at what they do.
Myth 6: It's not a huge issue to include more features at any time
People think that changing a few things here and there occasionally while developing software is equivalent to changing a few lines of code.
If there are too many changes, there may not have been a sound strategy before any development got underway or the justifications for the modifications may not be reliable.
Before using more resources, there are a few queries to ask:
Will users gain from this?
Technology: Will there need to be significant architectural changes as a result?
Business: Will the advantages outweigh the drawbacks?
Myth 7: You should make an effort to get the best technologies available
Many people want the most advanced technology because it appears to ensure success. However, there is a chance of over-serving your clients.
If you spend time constructing a Ferrari even when they simply require a Toyota Camry, there isn't any extra value.
In addition to technology, additional aspects including user demands, interface design, and commercial return must be taken into account for a project to succeed.
Myth 8: The project is complete after the software product is released
Have you ever been frustrated trying to utilize your favorite software or app only to discover that your device or operating system no longer supports it?
For the business that created the product, this entails a loss of potential earnings and other untapped prospects.
When approached as a live project, software development offers the most benefit.
Long-term strategy: an appropriate plan should be created initially
After-release support: take changes into account when technology, industry, and user trends change
Myth 9: Better performance will arise from the use of standard KPIs
This is yet another illustration of how to manage software development using traditional business principles.
The long-term effects of using incorrect KPIs to encourage programmers are negative. For instance, counting the number of support tickets addressed would just lead to new issues being brought up.
Programmers who compete rather than cooperate and support one another's development may also result.
Myth 10: Software may not have bugs
To put things in context, think about the software for launching rockets:
There was just one mistake in each of the 420,000 lines of code in each software version.
It was constructed by 260 people.
There will at least be a few flaws in your software unless you have NASA's resources and size. The ideal scenario would be for those defects to not be mission-critical and to gradually disappear.