Why is smoke and mirrors an anti-pattern?

Question

I recently read the Wikipedia Anti-Patterns list and noticed that this was included:

Smoke and Mirrors: Demonstration of how unrealized functions will be displayed

Why is that bad? The only thing I see is that if you never go to implement the specified function. But what if the function in the formal specification, "guaranteed", is completed? Will it still be bad to show potential customers what they are capable of?

Answer 1

To find out why smoke and mirrors will be antipatters, look at Smoke and Mirrors. Wikipedia From the article:

- , . , , . - .

, , , , (. ). , / - , .

, " " , , , .

, , , / , . - , - ( , blob ..), - , .

, , , . , , .

Answer 2

.

, - , , , , , . oohs aahs .

Answer 3

90% , 10% 0% .

, . .

Answer 4

Smoke and Mirrors, :

, , , (cf. steamware). , , / - , .

, .

Answer 5

( ) , .

, " " - -, , . . , (?) , - , - ", , , ".

Prototyping is usually a good thing - but . You should always be extremely careful both inside and (especially) in the outside world in order to be clear that this is a prototype, not a finished product. Management generally wants to believe that the prototype is a finished product (or at least can form the basis of one) in any case. Encouraging such a belief is very bad.