Why is incremental integration preferred over “big bang” integration?
-
Because incremental integration has better early defects screening and isolation ability
-
Because “big bang” integration is suitable only for real time applications
-
Incremental integration is preferred over “Big Bang Integration” only for “bottom up” development model
-
Because incremental integration can compensate for weak and inadequate component testing
Incremental integration tests and integrates components gradually, making defects easier to identify and isolate when they surface. Big bang integrates everything simultaneously, making it extremely difficult to determine which component caused a problem. Options B and C are incorrect: big bang isn't limited to real-time applications, and incremental works for both top-down and bottom-up. Option D describes a potential risk of poor component testing, not an advantage.
Incremental integration testing combines and tests modules a few at a time (e.g., top-down, bottom-up, or sandwich strategies), which means when a defect surfaces, it can be traced to the small set of newly-added components, giving much better early defect screening and isolation. 'Big bang' integration combines all modules at once and tests the whole system together, so when failures occur it's far harder to pinpoint which component(s) caused them, and defects surface late. The other options are false: big bang isn't specifically 'for real-time applications', incremental integration's benefit isn't tied only to bottom-up development, and it doesn't compensate for weak unit testing — it actually depends on adequate component-level testing having already been done.