5 ms·

> It's a vague as hell set of proscriptions that everybody could project their own ideas on to that got turned into a pseudo-religion. Then you're just complai

> It's a vague as hell set of proscriptions that everybody could project their own ideas on to that got turned into a pseudo-religion. Then you're just complaining about the nature of language, because people do the same thing with religious text, literary text, the law, contracts, even daily conversations and flirtations. This is hardly a point that you can hold against the Agile manifesto. > I once had it used against me to justify not writing tests If you thought of your work as a complex system where there are a lot of variables which have multiple underlying causes, then you would have been able to describe some undesirable effect as being heavily caused by not having writing tests. And really, this is why people don't get Agile--they don't see their work and their organization as a complex system.

pydry 5y ago
>Then you're just complaining about the nature of language, because people do the same thing with religious text, literary text, the law, contracts, even daily conversations and flirtations. This is hardly a point that you can hold against the Agile manifesto. Funnily enough the features of language which are ideally suited for flirtation and writing poetry and preaching religion or nationalism and other such "let your fantasy go wild and fill in the gaps" uses of language aren't as appropriate when you're doing engineering. Law and contracts ARE different (more like engineering), incidentally. What is described as "legalese" actually exists because non-legal equivalent language is often insufficiently precise and subject to dangerous and costly misinterpretation. Mathematical discussion has the same problem to such an extreme degree that it's almost pointless using English at all most of the time. >And really, this is why people don't get Agile The reason people say "people don't get Agile" is because they don't get that when the manifesto flirted with them it encouraged them to fill in the gaps with their own idealized version of software development that wasn't necessarily shared by everyone else.
- 3grdlurker 5y ago
  > aren't as appropriate when you're doing engineering Yeah but that's not the point that I'm making, is it? What I'm saying is that people project their own meanings into language all the time regardless of whether the language is being used in deeply personal interactions or in professional settings; therefore you can't just fault the Agile manifesto for its supposed "ambiguity". On the point re: how laws and contracts are different -- sure, these things have gotten more precise over time, but if the language of law was inherently precise then we wouldn't have a need for judges and courts and congresses. Heck, even mathematics isn't safe from the problem of the imprecision of language. Wasn't there a time just in the last year or two when people were debating about the correctness of the statement, "one plus one always equals two"? Which, really, brings us to the ultimate question, which also happens to be my response to your last sentence: > The reason people say "people don't get Agile" is because they don't get that when the manifesto flirted with them it encouraged them to fill in the gaps with their own idealized version of software development that wasn't necessarily shared by everyone else. So then is it a problem with the manifesto or with the people?
  - pydry 5y ago
    >Yeah but that's not the point that I'm making, is it? What I'm saying is that people project their own meanings into language all the time That was MY point. >therefore you can't just fault the Agile manifesto for its supposed "ambiguity". You absolutely can. They didn't have to write it in an obtuse, ambiguous and metaphorical way that practically required people to project their own meaning. They deliberately chose to. Scrum is a clear example of a methodology that is relatively (not completely) unambiguous. It's describing (in theory) a much more concrete form of "aspirational agile" and as such is at a lower risk of becoming all religious. >On the point re: how laws and contracts are different -- sure, these things have gotten more precise over time, but if the language of law was inherently precise then we wouldn't have a need for judges and courts and congresses. Heck, even mathematics isn't safe from the problem of the imprecision of language. Wasn't there a time just in the last year or two when people were debating about the correctness of the statement, "one plus one always equals two"? It's a sliding scale. Flirting and poetry is way over on the far left with the agile manifesto. Scrum is further to the right. Legalese is further still to the right. Math further still. It's fairly self-evident that the level of specificity required in the language used varies depending on the task. Being too specific when you flirt is common sitcom grist and nobody's ever made poetry out of a shopping list. >Which, really, brings us to the ultimate question, which also happens to be my response to your last sentence: So then is it a problem with the manifesto or with the people? It's the manifesto.
    - 3grdlurker 5y ago
      I think that you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the Agile manifesto. It’s not meant to be an algorithm or a highly specific set of instructions—it’s really just a collection of values that are meant to be the foundations of specific Agile frameworks, like Scrum. If you have trouble understanding that, then you must have trouble understanding the difference between Mission-Vision statements and KPIs.
      - rramadass 5y ago
        I see exact parallels between the Agile Manifesto and Agile Movement same as the Golden Plates of Moroni and Mormon Church.

pydry 5y ago

>Then you're just complaining about the nature of language, because people do the same thing with religious text, literary text, the law, contracts, even daily conversations and flirtations. This is hardly a point that you can hold against the Agile manifesto. Funnily enough the features of language which are ideally suited for flirtation and writing poetry and preaching religion or nationalism and other such "let your fantasy go wild and fill in the gaps" uses of language aren't as appropriate when you're doing engineering. Law and contracts ARE different (more like engineering), incidentally. What is described as "legalese" actually exists because non-legal equivalent language is often insufficiently precise and subject to dangerous and costly misinterpretation. Mathematical discussion has the same problem to such an extreme degree that it's almost pointless using English at all most of the time. >And really, this is why people don't get Agile The reason people say "people don't get Agile" is because they don't get that when the manifesto flirted with them it encouraged them to fill in the gaps with their own idealized version of software development that wasn't necessarily shared by everyone else.

3grdlurker 5y ago
> aren't as appropriate when you're doing engineering Yeah but that's not the point that I'm making, is it? What I'm saying is that people project their own meanings into language all the time regardless of whether the language is being used in deeply personal interactions or in professional settings; therefore you can't just fault the Agile manifesto for its supposed "ambiguity". On the point re: how laws and contracts are different -- sure, these things have gotten more precise over time, but if the language of law was inherently precise then we wouldn't have a need for judges and courts and congresses. Heck, even mathematics isn't safe from the problem of the imprecision of language. Wasn't there a time just in the last year or two when people were debating about the correctness of the statement, "one plus one always equals two"? Which, really, brings us to the ultimate question, which also happens to be my response to your last sentence: > The reason people say "people don't get Agile" is because they don't get that when the manifesto flirted with them it encouraged them to fill in the gaps with their own idealized version of software development that wasn't necessarily shared by everyone else. So then is it a problem with the manifesto or with the people?
- pydry 5y ago
  >Yeah but that's not the point that I'm making, is it? What I'm saying is that people project their own meanings into language all the time That was MY point. >therefore you can't just fault the Agile manifesto for its supposed "ambiguity". You absolutely can. They didn't have to write it in an obtuse, ambiguous and metaphorical way that practically required people to project their own meaning. They deliberately chose to. Scrum is a clear example of a methodology that is relatively (not completely) unambiguous. It's describing (in theory) a much more concrete form of "aspirational agile" and as such is at a lower risk of becoming all religious. >On the point re: how laws and contracts are different -- sure, these things have gotten more precise over time, but if the language of law was inherently precise then we wouldn't have a need for judges and courts and congresses. Heck, even mathematics isn't safe from the problem of the imprecision of language. Wasn't there a time just in the last year or two when people were debating about the correctness of the statement, "one plus one always equals two"? It's a sliding scale. Flirting and poetry is way over on the far left with the agile manifesto. Scrum is further to the right. Legalese is further still to the right. Math further still. It's fairly self-evident that the level of specificity required in the language used varies depending on the task. Being too specific when you flirt is common sitcom grist and nobody's ever made poetry out of a shopping list. >Which, really, brings us to the ultimate question, which also happens to be my response to your last sentence: So then is it a problem with the manifesto or with the people? It's the manifesto.
  - 3grdlurker 5y ago
    I think that you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the Agile manifesto. It’s not meant to be an algorithm or a highly specific set of instructions—it’s really just a collection of values that are meant to be the foundations of specific Agile frameworks, like Scrum. If you have trouble understanding that, then you must have trouble understanding the difference between Mission-Vision statements and KPIs.
    - rramadass 5y ago
      I see exact parallels between the Agile Manifesto and Agile Movement same as the Golden Plates of Moroni and Mormon Church.