In the past, I have seen a very small number of job postings that referred to Crystal, but I believe it was always in a list. The organization was looking for people familiar with different agile methods and listed several, including Crystal. However, a quick search of job sites today isn't revealing anything. The Crystal family of methodologies - the intention was to have several, based on the staffing size, complexity, and criticality of the product under development - was developed by Alistair Cockburn based on interviewing development teams at various organizations having different levels of success at their efforts. https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0201699478 was the most detailed version. Other methodologies that saw wide adoption, like Scrum and Extreme Programming, were developed and practiced by real teams on real projects before they were developed. I'm not sure that Crystal was ever something that was meant to be used. Crystal Clear and Extreme Programming share a lot of the same core concepts, but it always seemed to me like Crystal was more a way to help organizations think about the practices they use rather than a methodology or framework to be deployed.

You can show a table that exhibits the criteria against which you measured each of your decision alternatives with how you scored each alternative against the criterion, using a qualitative ordinal or quantitative interval scale. The example below shows a prioritization method that scores the relative value against costs and risks of four alternatives and the resulting score. Showing this table would explain--at least at a summary level--to stakeholders how you chose an alternative over the others. I have used it many times without issue.

Methodology - the development process itself - is almost entirely dependent on the technologies used, the architecture and the depravity scheme.The fact that you're still using Source Safe is that your developers run the files on the sale directly is not a technical problem (which, by the way, makes this issue an offtopics). It's a problem of self-organization - your team sees no problem or wants to solve it. This situation cannot be corrected by external influence. Let's just say you're gonna stop on the diagram for a week. There'll be an urgent problem after the event. Will you wait a week? Or do you start fixing an application on a living server?You should start by reporting the problem to the team. Because for now. each The developer will not see the problems of the current process - you will see all the same "rights, loss of data and "we've always done that, and everything was fine."

There are two options: (1) BAM; (2) not BAM. Here's a good role in thinking about BMS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBgHdSOj33A The emmet also supports the BAM if you go pee and copy. The size is not important. The minphysics are going to get worse.

I think we've figured out, we just need to write the names of the elements, and in these classes use the special properties of this block.<div class="cart"> <div class="cart__top"> <img class="cart__img" src="img/variant-cart-img.png" alt="chanel"> <div class="cart__sale lbl lbl_view_red">-10%</div> <div class="cart__type lbl lbl_view_green">Женские</div> </div> <div class="cart__bottom"> <div class="cart__content lbl lbl_view_violet">Духи</div> </div> </div> And then you can write such styles:.cart { display: flex; flex-direction: column; box-shadow: 3px 3px 0 #ebc3e0; overflow: hidden; cursor: pointer; } .cart__top { position: relative; width: 197px; height: 197px; } .cart__sale { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; padding: 14px 5px; } .cart__type { position: absolute; bottom: 0; right: 0; font-size: 10px; } .cart__content { text-transform: none; } And block .lbl remains intact: Correct me if I'm wrong. I should be grateful.

Agile (iterative) project management will extend the development timeline (in the second option, you basically describe agile technology) but minimizes the risks of incorrect design.Unfortunately, 90 per cent of the projects in the TK writing (or project planning) cannot be identified at 100 per cent immediately. As you said right yourself, the project begins to live its own life after some stage, namely:1-5 points of my task and protest, I understand that 8 and 9 points force me to rewrite 1-5 points.If the project is small or you are confident that the risks of misdesign are minimal, you can write and test at the end immediately.It is possible to choose another way to break the task not by 8 to 9 points, but only by 2 to 3 points, because the more the point/hiterations, the more you give the freedom of projecting, the less points, the more the risk of misdesign. Accordingly, you need to define the phases/iteration of the project, not on the basis of the internal logic of the project, but on the basis of the risks of incorrect design, that is, if you see in the draft, say 10 logical steps, of which 5 are well understood, and 5 others well understood, it makes sense to divide the project into 6 phases: 1, with 5 points that you understand, and 5 are the same. It is clear that this is not always possible, but it is, however, a common idea.

I'll just share my understanding of BAM without any reference. That's why my personal opinion is all lower. The main idea of BAM in the reusability of the component and that it could be easily altered, and the legacy in this case seems to me to be insignificant (because you're tied to one element lying in the other) and contradicting that we can unleash the elements into different containers (within BAM Block) and they might not depend on each other.Another duplication in any form is almost always bad, so I'd just share fragments in one sector:.block__paragraph, .block__fragment { color: red; text-decoration: underline; }

The problem with analogyThe analogy between a class with a screen that uses HTML structure cannot be made from 1 to 1.By dividing responsibilities between classes and methods you have a overhead of processing and memory, but it is much smaller compared to having two pages in different files. In addition, the idea of dividing responsibilities involves logical issues, coupling, maintenance and reuse.In the case of an HTML structure as proposed by jQuery Mobile, although it is bad working in a large file, there is effectively a mix between the various sections.JavaScript could, yes, end up mixing some things, but at that point it is worth the programmer's competence to know how to create specific excerpts for each screen. Note that even with splitting HTMLs into multiple files, it would still be possible to add the same script on all screens and there would be confusion. In fact, this is a common practice.Depends on the contextThe complexity of an application and its respective optimization make it not an absolutely "best" way of joining or dividing responsibilities.To avoid development and maintenance complexity the best would be to divide into multiple HTMLs. This would prevent unnecessary conflicts during merges and simplifies the developer's life in various ways. It also occupies less memory on the device. It seems to be better for apps that have plenty of content.Having an HTML can improve the user experience as the navigation between the pages will be instant. Logical that this may have a negative effect if the user wants to see only one page. This seems to be the best solution for relatively small applications where overall simplicity speaks louder.ConsiderationsjQuery Mobile allows different and mixed approaches. In the documentation on http://demos.jquerymobile.com/1.4.4/pages/ , there is information on how to do single page template (a page by HTML) and multi-page template (various pages in HTML).There also says that using these structures are conventions, not an obligation. There is even a topic titled Prefetching pages which explains how to preload multiple pages when using single page templates.A more advantageous mixed solution would have multiple HTMLs, but grouping related screens into each one.

In my view it depends a lot on the IDE used. Visual Studio, for example, makes comments like // TODO: and //HACK: in a toolbox for easy identification and location. Plugins like Resharper also color and emphasize such lines. Other plugins allow you to insert such notifications into check-ins and code reviews, so that they are always visible (after all, a TODO: as comment is like comment forever) Example of VS tool:

What matters is to deliver product that meets requirements, among them that:be easily usable (which involves many things, among them the right speed)solves the problem correctlyallow evolution with tranquilityother punctuals.He has several techniques to do this, but to choose a closed one, and that he has to do everything that is in the "girl" does not seem prudent.Object-Oriented Analysis and Project does not seem to me to be a very closed technique in a certain aspect, that is, it does not seem to be a handbook, at least not for a book of the 80s that I have (or had) on the specific subject.To speak the truth to create a project and to know that it will be oriented the object seems to me a beautiful of a tendenciosity.AgileI usually say, even lecturer, that almost every conceptualization of what we use in computing was created until the 1960s and almost all the technology we use today was created until the 1970s. You have very few exceptions. Almost everything is small evolution in the way of using or recycling what existed. In my opinion, much as a marketing function, is recreated to have a new product. I see people talking about Agile today when this is very simple, and in the background it is just a matter of common sense, but people have given a way to make a lot of money with the carnival they have made.The https://www8.cs.umu.se/kurser/TDBC31/Overheads/L6_new.pdf It's got a lot to do with it, it was a Gold race to see who can impose his pattern and get rich with it. They didn't invent anything new, they only packed in a different way.UMLLuckily a half UML who died (have people who haven't noticed it yet), it was always a nonsense (not that it serves anything, but it is no better than what already existed except one detail or another), as a tool created is unnecessary. It was the time that the industry wanted to sell such https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_software_engineering that people were talking about going to end the programmer and I laughed, even though I was an inexperienced 20-year-old boy, and I had an argument, it wasn't kicking.What's left? The good and old systems analysis and design, some object-oriented. Each time with new scripts of how to do, sometimes use different graphics or tools to help visualize the project, and in some cases within a given bias to make in a specific way as the fashion of the moment. Even because they do not know what to do and resort to the formulas that someone sells to them.Because it is no longer usedThe question states why it does not use, but lacks evidence that does not use. They probably don't use the term. If you're talking about a specific script, you can tell if you know what you're talking about. What's the option? "Meter the flake" and deliver anything? Some think that Agile is like this, some think that if planning anything is not agile. I'm sorry about those people. Nor am I going to get into the merit that some products are terrible precisely for adopting Agile, no matter whether right or wrong (when it goes wrong they say it was not the right Agile, when sometimes the problem was not that). They say that UML is Agile, being that it is something extremely bureaucratic and a normally unnecessary step that brings little benefit. To speak the truth I saw much more agile Waterfall project than Agile project using UML and other inappropriate tools.ConclusionMy conclusion is that it is just not fashionable to use this term. And this is nothing different than people, even informally, sometimes scrambled a paper, making a prototype in code, in short, agile is that, is to do, is meet the demand.No methodology teaches to do right, is experience, it is the ability of the person to look at all, look for every detail, let nothing escape, create a new look, rethink what is finding there, understand what needs to be done, what will have of future difficulty. And what I usually say, in orientation the object is usually more difficult to do because you have to see the object and much of its relationships in a very appropriate way, while paradigms or guidelines that prey for the composition are more flexible.OOPThat's why you say:in OOP to every change in the project that requires a new action you have to change various objectsin procedural/functional you have to change each function whenever you add a new object in the model.Here comes the question: what is most common in real-life software projects, after initial creation, add new objects or functions to the object? So I defend a approach Hybrid. And more and more I convince myself that OOP in business domain should be very limited, it is better for mechanisms, where the programmer has more control and theoretically manages to predict more what can happen.DDDI don't know if DDD has something to do with it (by the original question in SE.SE), even if it fits into this conversation, but I've been talking to people who use and it's horror show reported by them. And usually the one who encouraged says they didn't know how to make a right, only they took the course of the guy and received certificate from him. And by my studies has a terrible thing in the methodology that I had not noticed, although I still find the legal general idea, the problem is in the details.

O http://manifestoagil.com.br/ values the following items:Individuals and interaction between them more than processes and toolsSoftware in operation more than comprehensive documentationCollaboration with the customer more than contract negotiationResponding to changes more than following a planIt is important to make it clear that the items on the right are no longer necessary, only less important than the items on the left.The manifest still possesses http://manifestoagil.com.br/principios.html , but the main idea behind it is to work on the points where conventional models most fail.Quite specific documentation (which often say how the programmer should do his job), stimulate communication between team members to the maximum (with daily meetings), understand what the customer wants and have constant feedback and embrace constant changes, be changes in requirements or changes to bring improvements to the team.Trying to answer your question: no matter how you will do your documentation, just don't waste much time on her. If you worry more about understand what the customer wants and pass this to the rest of the team (unless it is necessary to place the team and the client in the same room), whether in the format of user stories, in a document in Word, a text file or several Post-its organized by the room.As I mentioned before, the Agile Manifesto presents several principles and all this can seem very abstract on paper.So I highly recommend that you watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ktqVPO4zY&list=PL66584479A168CC00 , http://viniciusteles.com.br/ in the 2008 TDC. I am not recommending that you apply Extreme Programming, but I think that explanation of Vinícius (and its great and hilarious analogies) can help you a lot, just as they have already helped me.

Like recently Brad Frost, the father of Atomic Design, made a For those who are not familiar with Atomic Design here are illustrations to help understand in a practical way. Notice that in this picture below Design Tokens had not yet been contemplated, there are no details of the library of icons, palette of colors or typographical choices. Now the answerNow more focused on the question. First, Atomic Design (AD), is not a strict rule, an immutable and ingenious concept. It does not need to follow steps as rigid, and just as Scrum or Design Sprint it can be adapted to the reality of your company and your team.Here you can see how CanadaPost has its particular way of using the AC that diverges some of the original concept... This is just an example, in your vcs company you should find what best suits the development culture of the project. Consider that almost all Design System like Bootstrap, Materialize, Bluma, Tailwind, Faundation, etc., virtually all, in a certain way are within the Atomic concept, as they have, defined typography, color palette, icons, grid, buttons, dropdowns, navbar, templates. etc. As a designer, I'm going to address a pro and one against not having a dedicated person. I will not enter the merit of the UX in this answer not to be too long, it is assumed that the user has already been researched etc. ok.And what is the main advantage of using these Design System? Yes time saving, and ease for those who do not master the design and CSS. The problem even happens when vc needs to break the system rules! A more expert professional will miss. How you can see below.Pro: Basically the pro is cost, because vc will not have to spend with a dedicated professional and that in some cases can get a little idle within the team. The rest is all against rss...Cons:Inconsistency in design, there may be color variations, typography, etc.No one to make design adjustments to adapt components to new realities.No one to create a new component that did not exist before in the Design System.Absence of person responsible for maintaining the library and documentation.Those are just a few points that make all the difference. A Design System will help a lot for a reduced squad, but in the long run a professional will miss you when things start climbing too much, it is easy to lose control of a design system, especially when the team and big and everyone does a style there or here.In short: Atomic Design is a concept that will help you build a Design System, which will help your team develop a more consistent and faster and organized project. Remembering that a designer will greatly facilitate the life of the team, especially if it is multi-disciplinary with UX knowledge > UI > Front-endSee, it's easier and faster to assemble something complex by following a manual that's equal for everyone and that everyone can easily consult, or each one will ride the way they want as you think best. Which of the two ways is more likely to fail? Regardless of the size of the team, who has the most chance to fail, who has a "manual" or who doesn't have a "manual"?

It seems to me more of a question of text interpretation. The fact is that by elimination the other 4 answers are much worse, they talk about things that affect the result.The correct answer speaks in renegotiation, it just doesn't say that it usually part of the development team when it understands that the scope is not adequate and will discover along the sprint. The text of the site says that the owner of the project should not change the scope for his initiative by changing what was foreseen in the sprint, that is, it cannot put any new requirements that affect the development of that sprint I'm sorry I couldn't do it.In practice this negatively affects development, I will not go into detail to avoid controversy, but imagine a change of plans cannot interfere with development and have to continue doing something that will then have to be remade to meet the bureaucracy. And there are people who say that the methodology exists to debureaucratize.The question option phrase was probably taken from page 9 of a http://www.scrumguides.org/docs/scrumguide/v2017/2017-Scrum-Guide-US.pdf .I consider that the Brazilian site is at least confusing in what it speaks.

Just like Lean and Kanban the 5S appeared in Japan from JIT (Just in Time).The 5S was and is still widely used in the automobile industry and complements Kanban to maintain a perspective of improvement.Kanban was introduced to the software industry by http://www.infoq.com/articles/David-Anderson-Kanban The 5S concept5S is a model to organize the working environment or a manufacturing factory etc. From the moment the 5S is implemented in the environment the work of the employees cleaner and organized.To use an analogy see the picture below:How it works in the traditional industry:1 - OrganizedOrganizing the area and elimating waste in which I reside can be a tool in which it is not useful.2 - StraightenAfter the site has been organized and positioned in a way that the work can be completed by generating the minimum possible waste. In order to avoid waste, if you need to move a tool 100 times in the day the ideal is that it is in one of the most affordable places to save time.3 - Polish (Brilhar)Ensure the place is always clean and tidy (ready to be used).4 - StandardizeMake standards to ensure positioning is maintained.5 - MaintainVerify that the patterns are being followed as designed.How to relate the concepts in our industry:1 - OrganizedRemove old codes and that are no longer in production, if free of what no longer matters.2 - StraightenSometimes in software production there is the concept of : "Make it work and then ruin to stay beautiful". Separate the code with some form of distributed orientation (aspects, objects) not to need to check what occurs in a main.c of 20,000 lines of code.3 - Polish (Brilhar)Allow time to refactor the project and document the functions as something in the sense of JavaDoc (you don't need to be programming in Java to maintain the standard proposed by JavaDoc).4 - StandardizeIf your team doesn't have a code pattern that should be followed, don't expect a new member will analyze the existing code and try to follow a possible pattern.5 - MaintainOnce the standards are set it is important to keep them to ensure that the company continues to follow them.

Well, I didn't mean to answer, but here's a comment that Francisco Junior made:If by chance any user comes only by subjectively opining in the answer (as in the first comment saying to "never use waterfall"), he should receive negative votes.So let's go. You can sit your finger on the negative here on the left!According to I recommend reading the whole article, and again I emphasize that it is from the distant year of 1970. However, this continues so far, waterfall part of the precept that development is composed of rigid and sequential steps, but this never works and everyone who has already entered some project in it knows why:The client changes his mind all the time.The client doesn't know what he wants.A bug came up in the test and we found that there is a mistake there at the beginning of the project.In the middle of the project something happens and then we have to go back and change a lot of thing.The user did not like the product.The competitor solved the problem in a different and better way.The customer asked for changes in a certain part, changing an important requirement.There are two or more conflicting requirements.The client says one thing an hour and then says the opposite.A difficult problem has arisen in development and the deadline has already been pro bag.Etc.If you want something more recent, it is muuuuito, but muuuito easy to find on the internet, you could easily cite Martin Fowler, TDD practices, or even the book Head First about agile development, which inside explains why waterfall does not work.And now, to ensure my downvote, I will give my personal remark about what we see today: In fact, it is difficult to find some material that defends waterfall today and that comes from someone who has a minimum idea about what is talking about, and not just parrotting old concepts that never gave themselves the job of questioning.On the top list I quoted some reasons why waterfall fails. Basically it all comes down to the fact that things change over time. What yesterday was a requirement, today may not be more. What was not important yesterday, today is fundamental. Today we have an important restriction, but tomorrow we have no more. This is where agile methodologies come in: they have been thought of attacking these problems, assuming that these things change over time and balling strategies so that changes can be implemented quickly.Well, I confess that I've only given half the answer here and I haven't said anything about scrum. I'm not going to get much into details of the scrum and I'm just going to make a quick list to recommend when using agile methodologies (more generically, either scrum or not) or when using waterfall, and I'm sure that after you read it and have already given the downvote, you'll still call your friends to also vote against:If your scope and your requirements are undeniably closed, immutable and stone-written, and your code is absolutely perfect and bug-free, you can get along well with waterfall. Otherwise, I recommend the agile.If your role or function of your company is to generate millions of pages of requirements documents, business rules, architectural decisions, flow charts, etc., and these documents will not be read or criticized by anyone (or at least by anyone who has the power to be heard), and it is not you who will make the code, so waterfall is also for you. Otherwise I recommend the agile.If you plant bugs and purpose-defined requirements in your project to then charge the customer for any requested change, then waterfall will also serve you. Otherwise I recommend the agile.If your religion, your philosophy, your sense of living, or your favorite divinity tells you that you should follow bureaucratic and rigidly defined plans simply because things have always been like this, are so and always will be so and that you have the obligation to be happy with it without ever thinking about questioning, then recommend waterfall. Otherwise I recommend the agile.To finalize, responding to this comment:By the way, aeronautical certifications require formal development models. It is much more likely that the software that surrounds the Boeing planes, for example, are developed with a process closer to Waterfall than a purely agile and informal methodology such as Scrum. And I ask you one thing: do you prefer to fly on a plane that has FAA software certification or on a plane that has been developed without any formality with Scrum?In response to this, I say that on 11/10/2013, I attended a lecture at IME/USP in São Paulo demonstrating the opposite. The title of the lecture was "Combinando Scrum, AOP, DDD and Metadados – A Successful Case in Embraer" and speakers Roberto Perillo, Tiaslei Vasni and Daniel Feichas. Here is the summary of the lecture:This lecture consists of the presentation of the approach to creating an application called AHEAD (Aircraft HEalth Analisys and Diagnosis), currently in progress in the Executive Aviation area at Embraer. The application architecture combines Domain-Driven Design, aspects and metadata, whose development is being managed with SCRUM. Initially, a small history of projects will be shown in Embraer and because it was decided to use the SCRUM. Then, some errors made by the software industry (according to the experience of team members) will be shown and the important concepts for understanding the approach used in the application design. The following will be presented the functional and non-functional requirements that motivated the use of the approach and how the elements were implemented. It will also be shown how the ALM environment manages the application life cycle and how tests were organized (unit, integration and system). As an example, issues related to the implementation of security in the application will be presented, reverse AJAX through domain events, cross interests and integration with other systems. In conclusion, the benefits obtained with the approach will be presented, such as the flexibility gain in the application and the speed acceleration of the team with regard to productivity.

The vision document captures design restrictions and high-level requirements so that the customer can understand the system that will be developed. Its goal is to provide a broad view of the product that is intended to develop, without deepening in technical details.In this IBM link has an example of a vision document: https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/pt-br/SSWMEQ_3.0.1/com.ibm.rational.rrm.help.doc/topics/r_vision_doc.html .

This functionality is not widespread among other languages and there is also no good practice found by common sense, so my opinion is that this new functionality will be very well used by some and others will be used as a new form of "gambiarra".Personal opinion:Good use:Calculate default values for method arguments;In this example, if you want to change the default limit from 5 to 10, you will change in one place:<?php class Foo { const DEFAULT_LIMIT = 5; public function bar($limit = self::DEFAULT_LIMIT) { //code } public function wonka($limit = self::DEFAULT_LIMIT) { //code } } Evil use:Calculation of urls and paths in constants, since this can be used as always was, using define() or even creating specialized objects and methods in delivering the Paths information for example.

I consider the issue valid and relevant, but I have to admit that it enters a bit in the field of personal opinion.Developer VisionAs I am primarily a Developer, I have difficulties seeing some advantage in a process framework such as RUP and other types of control such as ISO, COBIT, CMMI, MPS.BR and ITIL.This is because the developer in general is much more concerned about delivering the software that was assigned to do. In addition, experienced developers know how to do their job very well and manage themselves.Team VisionWithin a large company, a development team has a small view of the whole. This means that it is only aware of the projects it is involved with, but has no global visibility of the company's guidelines.Agile methods are also more attractive for teams because they "empower" them in the sense that those involved can redefine the process as best suits them to deliver what is needed. Manager ViewProcess frameworks are usually management initiative.This is because managers in general cannot have a visibility of projects from a technical point of view and need "abstract" planning and monitoring mechanisms. The formalization and bureaucracy are the way to bring visibility into the project for those who are not effectively participating in it.Processes and hierarchyIf we imagine a hierarchy, with the company president at the top and the developers at the base, we can say that agile processes work from the bottom up (bottom-up), flowing from the team, while "traditional" processes come from top to bottom (top-down), leaving the management.It is not rare for the company to formally adopt a process such as RUP or CMMI while the team adopts a process Slum-like with one manager making the interface between one world and another.Process customizationAn interesting point of view is that agile processes begin with a minimum bureaucracy and can be added to the process what else is needed. On the other hand, frameworks with the RUP bring an arsenal of roles, activities, artifacts and you need to remove those you will not use.In the end, after undergoing an adaptation process, the RUP can become practically the same thing as the Scrum, only with a different starting point.Partial deliveriesThere are actually projects that require partial deliveries and others with marked date for "total delivery". But what literature and experience show is that the model waterfall doesn't work well on virtually any kind of software design.In the case of projects with "total delivery", what is usually recommended is to generate entregables and define a "client" that will test the executable software. Can be a manager, a testing team, the product owner or someone who has sufficient knowledge about business rules.However, in delivery to the end user, it is inevitable a shock proportional to the amount of features delivered, as there will always be a gap between what was understood and what really is necessary.Anyway, if the customer wants to opt for a total delivery, it should be aware that the time required for adjustments will not be small.And what is the difference between agile methods and the RUP in this sense? Virtually none. Note the RUP phases:The RUP is divided between various disciplines, among them test (test) and Delivery (deployment). Consider that the colored area of each discipline represents the level of activity of it.Since the Elaboration phase, the RUP already provides testing and delivery activities. In fact the whole idea of this phase is to have an executable architecture to mitigate the biggest risks of the project early.Returning to the contrast between RUP and Scrum, of course there can be differences in the size of the iteration and the amount of deliveries. Also considering XP practices, unit tests and automation of builds can bring great benefits. However, all of this ends up more in technical and questions of the team than in the process itself.With the exception of XP, which has several technical definitions, Scrum and RUP are too abstract of software development to impose a very large difference.However, something that greatly influences planning is that Scrum seeks to give the customer the possibility of defining which features he wants first. The idea is to give the customer what brings value to the business as soon as possible.Of course this decreases the flexibility of the developer or manager when planning. It's also hard to get, which causes a little overhead in development and requires a considerable capacity of those who model and develop.It's a trade-off. Some hang to one side while others go to the other. It is much easier to developer a system linearly than to start straight through core and, as they preach some agile methodologies, refactor the system until it proceeds to do all that is necessary.General considerationsProcess frameworks such as RUP were designed as tools for managers. Agile methodologies focus on team self-organization. In companies, both end up being somehow necessary.On the other hand, reports in general indicate that entrepreneurs, startups and even large high-tech companies have taken much more advantage in "disbureaucratizing" the development process, of course, relying on experienced and highly qualified developers for this.Something very important is to consider that control, as well as quality, has a built-in cost. The increase in bureaucracy decreases productivity exponentially and often creates unnecessary barriers. Although this may even be desirable in certain environments (Bancos, Stock Exchange, Insurers), I do not think we recommend emerging companies, whose dynamics and flexibility are the differentials to be able to enter the market.ConclusionWhat everyone can (and should) do is seek to understand the functioning and goal of each process, in addition to the good practices that each seeks to disseminate. With this knowledge in hand, it is possible to adopt those that are most important to the project without the need to adopt a process label itself.And something everyone should keep in mind, is that no process does magic in quality or productivity. On the contrary, it can get in the way. Something everyone agrees today is that: http://manifestoagil.com.br/

Thinking of Mobile App development can also be seen as the development of any software. You can find some methods that might have been created looking for the focus exactly on mobile development. I don't know any in particular. But I believe your Organization and focus is that they will be primordial in the final quality of the solution delivery.The use of agile methodologies has more to do with the size of your project than with the type of Software you are developing. From an ERP to an App, techniques like Scrum. In the end what determines the need is your goal of organizing development activities. For more extensive projects it would really be a good way to organize and maintain the schedule of all the activities of an EQUIPE.I also know something that can meet this requirement mentioned in the third topic. But in front of your scenario, the initial planning you've made will most likely be enough for the project to be properly developed within your time. The delivery speed will depend only on you.Whenever possible I like to use class diagrams to develop my projects, then I would advise you to do also, just so that you can better predict everything that will be created and already filter out possible failures in the implementation before even the code has been written.

Yeah, it's a good practice.Make it very clear where this code line is not to be difficult to make debug if you have a problem and do not see that the line is there. Whenever there are unnecessary iterations, breaking the loop is good, not only in PHP.