Talk:List of software development philosophies

This is not a philosophical category
This category conflates philosophy and the philosophy of technology with methodology. It should be renamed to "software development methodologies". Philosophy "is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, identity, and language." It is determined by what is most basic in our abstract, universal, and theoretical concepts. It is not based on the highly developed practices of the applied sciences in the colloquial sense of a philosophy, although it may reflect on these topics in the process of systematic reflection. If no action is taken on this issue in the near future I will return to make the appropriate edits. --Aliensyntax (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think the page is nicely structured, including methodologies. Software has no theory... (if this is really so), here is a nice read https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/4700.html ... also https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=software%20theory gives time ideas or https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=software%20theory so I would not say we should rename or delete it, but rather discuss, research and specify it further. Philosophy often links with wisdom and as you mention values, reason, etc. are all legitimate with the presented topics, e.g. Worse it better. Finally, another major read is https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science --𝔏92934923525 (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One more thing, additionally, I think that computer viruses are extremely theoretical in nature, philosophical indeed, see John von Neumann and ISBN 2287239391 "Computer Viruses: from theory to applications" and it all has to do with software development in on or the other way. Ethically as well. Yes, it's deep. --𝔏92934923525 (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This article's existence
I'm not sure this article needs to exist- between the two categories I added to the See also, this list seems pretty superfluous. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't offer much more than a category would right now. But it could be a lot more useful if it added a basic one-sentence description of the item (it being difficult to ascertain anything about them right now without visiting each page), or if it were structured according to the type of approach. --David Edgar (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think I should exist and if I may quote "The philosophy of computer science is concerned with the ontological and methodological issues arising from within the academic discipline of computer science, and from the practice of software development and its commercial and industrial deployment. More specifically, the philosophy of computer science considers the ontology and epistemology of computational systems, focusing on problems associated with their specification, programming, implementation, verification and testing.", I highlight the parts that relate.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Blind Men And Elephant Approach
There are very few pages for BMAEA that link to anywhere other than reposts of this list, or to acronym explainers. I searched for a while and found http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/PDL-FTP/associated/issre09_pan.pdf as a source for a possible link to programming. This isn't a design philosophy, it's a data analysis method. I've pulled the entry out of the list. If anyone wants to prove to me that this BMAEA is a real thing, go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.9.194 (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, based on my review, it's a no. It's not part of main article right now. Your comment is unsigned and from 2012, so I call this done. ✅ 17387349L8764 (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Obvious superfluous set of techniques
I wonder if something could be said of the fact that there are basically too many software development techniques and philosophies to be worth understanding. None of these techniques are associated with real published empirical evidence of their claims, and so it is impossible or very difficult to really judge the kind of situations these techniques are really suitable for.83.208.165.249 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, well there are studies on this topic, see https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=review%20of%20software%20development%20method etc. Feel free to add some text, otherwise it's a list.✅--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Missing philosophies
This article is still missing a number of prominent development methodologies. Some of the omissions include:


 * Broken trombone
 * Moving target approach
 * Never Use Keyboard Entry (NUKE)
 * Steal And Use Code You Didn't Develop (SAUCYDD)
 * Walrus of paranoia

I wasn't able to find articles for any of these techniques, so clearly there is much work to be done! 142.20.133.199 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ^I've googled all of these and the only hit is this talk page, have you made them up? QueBurro (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Some motivation: https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/csd-mtd ... I have to read it first and learn.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, checked some of the "omissions". MTD is archived on DHS page and no other resources exist as far as my quick-search goes. For the rest, "Broken trombone" etc. nothing exists. Either include them again with decent sources, references, or let's stop here for sake of quality and clarity. KR ✅ 17387349L8764 (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Should it amuse that data-driven development is not in this list?
Should it amuse that data-driven development is not in this list?

If amused, see talk that that article.

G. Robert Shiplett 22:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

^ it's under "Software development processes" QueBurro (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

^^I also think data-oriented design should be on this list. Pulu (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello 1, please use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Indentation
 * Hello 2, I added both schools, DDD and DOD, to list. Next time you can do it on your own? --𝔏92934923525 (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)✅

I don't know the name of this particular discipline
There is a programming philosophy which stresses that, for procedural languages, programmers should focus mainly on the basic and common features of the language, and eschew bizarre language constructs unless they are necessary. The idea behind this is that portage from one procedural language to another would be blissfully easy, since we try to use the features that are common among those languages. I don't know what the name of this philosophy is, though -- I forget it because I'm stupid and my brain hurts. Does anybody know the name of that particular programming philosophy? It might be on the list already and I just don't know which one it is. I perused through a number of them that sounded similar, but I didn't see those ideas expressed anywhere. I think, whatever the name is, it would make a good inclusion to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.249.42 (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think it is called procedural programming and I added it to the list. Otherwise I think you need to intensify your research and come to reach a target definition. Searching online gives a lot of results. Here is one article https://hackr.io/blog/procedural-programming and more research-oriented results via https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=procedural%20programming --𝔏92934923525 (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC) ✅

Duplicates and compositions
Solid and Dry are in the list twice.

Solid is an acronym composed of other acronyms. Everyone ok if I change the ordering so that Solid unfolds to its parts? QueBurro (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, yes I guess everyone Ok with that since nobody commented since 2014... did you change it then?-𝔏92934923525 (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, calling it done. No "Solid and Dry" in the main article. Add with references if it's a real thing. KR ✅ 17387349L8764 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)