4 ms·

I feel like we're talking at right angles. Your central point seems to be that most people will never build software like this. That's totally true, no contes

I feel like we're talking at right angles. Your central point seems to be that most people will never build software like this. That's totally true, no contest. However, I think it's still an interesting topic, and a significant minority can learn something useful. There should be room for both perspectives here.

jdietrich 17y ago
I'd be more inclined to agree if the piece wasn't entitled "Games Development in a Post-Agile World". The central conceit of the article seems to be to debunk agile as a workable method. The article doesn't argue that agile is a hugely useful approach for most developers but a poor approach in some specific niches, it argues that agile is complete claptrap. I will happily agree with you that there is room for a number of development methodologies.
- teamonkey 17y ago
  > "it argues that agile is complete claptrap." No it doesn't. It says that Agile proponents who claim it's a silver bullet are talking claptrap. If anything, it says that Agile is a tool and you need to pick the right tool for the job. Based on the Agile manifesto, the author proposes a scale with "people" at one end and "process" at the other. Ostensibly waterfall is strongly "process" and Agile is a more "people", but he argues that Agile consists of a number of elements that exist at different points along that scale. He says that the elements down at the "people" end of the spectrum require good, experienced, self-motivated people. If you have these then Agile is more efficient. If you have juniors or average coders (more likely on a large team) then the overhead of a process-based system may work better. He also identifies the points within the product's development lifecycle where Agile-like approaches work best and when the more hierarchical methods work best.

4 ms·

I feel like we're talking at right angles. Your central point seems to be that most people will never build software like this. That's totally true, no contes

by megaduck 17y ago

jdietrich 17y ago
I'd be more inclined to agree if the piece wasn't entitled "Games Development in a Post-Agile World". The central conceit of the article seems to be to debunk agile as a workable method. The article doesn't argue that agile is a hugely useful approach for most developers but a poor approach in some specific niches, it argues that agile is complete claptrap. I will happily agree with you that there is room for a number of development methodologies.
- teamonkey 17y ago
  > "it argues that agile is complete claptrap." No it doesn't. It says that Agile proponents who claim it's a silver bullet are talking claptrap. If anything, it says that Agile is a tool and you need to pick the right tool for the job. Based on the Agile manifesto, the author proposes a scale with "people" at one end and "process" at the other. Ostensibly waterfall is strongly "process" and Agile is a more "people", but he argues that Agile consists of a number of elements that exist at different points along that scale. He says that the elements down at the "people" end of the spectrum require good, experienced, self-motivated people. If you have these then Agile is more efficient. If you have juniors or average coders (more likely on a large team) then the overhead of a process-based system may work better. He also identifies the points within the product's development lifecycle where Agile-like approaches work best and when the more hierarchical methods work best.