2 ms·

Of course your allowed that opinion. But I would say we do have a crystal ball into the world where agile was not popular, and that was the world before agile.

Of course your allowed that opinion. But I would say we do have a crystal ball into the world where agile was not popular, and that was the world before agile. And that world was full of over engineered systems that did not solve the users' real problems. Part of how you feel about agile likely has to do with the industry you are in. If you're doing embedded systems for cars or medical devices, agile is absolutely trash. But for the very large world of consumer facing software, or even business software that isn't dealing with life-or-death situations, the agile world is so much better than the waterfall world.

Chris2048 6y ago
If more user engagement is the key, the agile philosophy would be a sentence rather than a manifesto. Instead it was a bunch of vague maxims, that became a cult collection of heuristics (nominally rooted in Java, as much as it claimed to be polyglot). The counter-argument to this is "No True Agiles-man", so the brand never needs to take responsibility for the reality, and this defense is as much a part of the culture as anything. It's like agile is a religion, and the manifesto is the religious texts - selectively ignored or interpreted as needed. No, I don't feel this is much better than waterfall, especially as even that could have evolved into more user engagement, without the mantras ("waterfall is bad" itself being a mantra) - why can't waterfall be a "tool in the belt", or a reasoned stage in the process? Why can't agile principles be taken individually rather than adamant on the whole? Why can't sometimes people be more important that process, and sometimes process more important than people? Why can't we have a plan (moreso upfront), and still respond to change?
Chris2048 6y ago
I'd add: It's not easy to speak up in a forum where a significant % of members receive paychecks dependant on praising agile.

Chris2048 6y ago

If more user engagement is the key, the agile philosophy would be a sentence rather than a manifesto. Instead it was a bunch of vague maxims, that became a cult collection of heuristics (nominally rooted in Java, as much as it claimed to be polyglot). The counter-argument to this is "No True Agiles-man", so the brand never needs to take responsibility for the reality, and this defense is as much a part of the culture as anything. It's like agile is a religion, and the manifesto is the religious texts - selectively ignored or interpreted as needed. No, I don't feel this is much better than waterfall, especially as even that could have evolved into more user engagement, without the mantras ("waterfall is bad" itself being a mantra) - why can't waterfall be a "tool in the belt", or a reasoned stage in the process? Why can't agile principles be taken individually rather than adamant on the whole? Why can't sometimes people be more important that process, and sometimes process more important than people? Why can't we have a plan (moreso upfront), and still respond to change?

Chris2048 6y ago

I'd add: It's not easy to speak up in a forum where a significant % of members receive paychecks dependant on praising agile.