Your quotes from Uncle Bob to my ears sound like trite nonsense. Moreover, name-checking him and then giving quotations of what he said seems positively religi

Your quotes from Uncle Bob to my ears sound like trite nonsense. Moreover, name-checking him and then giving quotations of what he said seems positively religious. My basic argument with agile is this - can it be measured that these things are good? Or is it just a pile of piffle built on anecdotal evidence - that people get paid thousands of dollars a day as consultants to espouse? The industry has a long legacy of this - e.g. designing your classes in UML will solve your problems, or the Rational Unified Process, or prior to that, in the early 90s, Rational Rose diagramming experience was the "must have" on your CV. One of the more reasonable analysis tools was Use Cases in my view, but most of it is just a bunch of noise, busy-making tasks which Andersen Consulting were more than happy to provide 100 people doing these tasks and bilk some client 100m for the pleasure. There's no substitute for high quality, intelligent people self-organising. People that want to proceduralise developer behaviour are basically people that want to steal our freedom to be creative and effective, in the manner which befits ourselves as individuals. And make themselves ghastly rich doing it. I don't see Uncle Bob as all that different, having hung out in the Agile evangelist scene in London for a while - they are all on the lam. In my opinion.