I believe Winston Royce regrets writing the paper the way he did. Seems nobody reads past the first page. It’s like when people read Adam Smith describing division of labor and think “Wow, division of labor is good” and then neglect to read 300+ pages in where he says division of labor makes people as stupid as a creature can be.
I think the DOD-STD-2167 waterfall requirement came from a desire to harmonise the software development with the hardware development, and probably originated in thinking of projects where the software is a tiny part of the whole.
What I always read “extreme programming” as was an approach not necessarily based on any new ideas - all the parts of design, implementation, planning, maintenance, etc were there. Rather it was an attitude of using a few approaches to cut through complexity.
The ideal is not so much turning one’s back on good planning principles but having a carefully curated and limited subset of all the reasonable ideas, one calculated to always bring things forward. That sounds reasonable but could just be the come-on for the latest snake-oil.
that’s right, Extreme Programming didn’t introduce any new practices (though test first had been lost and needed rediscovering). Kent Beck described discovering the practices as “seeing what hurts and doing more of it”.
I’m in a pretty much constant war with the “Agile” people at the corporation where I work. They don’t understand where it came from, what it is supposed to be, or how software actually works. It’s pretty infuriating, and the worst part is when they appeal to the SAFe “way” as some sort of gospel.
It’s interesting to see that even back when this was proposed, the way of working was acknowledged and discussed, even if government jobs and corporations got it totally wrong. It’s like history repeating, I guess.