This is what I mean by only listening to polemical takes on waterfall. Do you think that anyone advocating for waterfall would actually claim that you never incorporate feedback? That's why you have prototype phases
Yes. I've witnessed it several times. Some people are truly moronic. But there's no point in arguing for Waterfall if you actually use your brain and don't do Waterfall.
EDIT: You didn't do Waterfall, just to be clear. You used prototypes and feedback along the way which Waterfall explicitly excludes. So why do you insist you participated in Waterfall projects?
In order to advocate for Waterfall instead of any Agile methodology during the last decade or so one has to be overwhelmingly blindfolded by the religion. And these kind of folk tend to be quite strict in their faith. As in: "we had enough time to discuss things and think it through and now it's time to stick to the decisions we made".
And yes, I have witnesses just that quite a few times.
I know a software company that strictly uses classic Waterfall even to this day. A minor feature that should typically iterate in production for like 3 or 4 times and be done takes them about a year to implement and still never deliver what the customer wanted. And I'm not exaggerating. (The company prints free money from another line of business).
I've seen supposedly "agile" companies (in reality: Cargo cult agile, jira-driven micromanagement and long plans. Much waterfall) that failed to incorporate feedback. So yes, it could be.
