3 ms·

Yes, if a huge organisation tries to manage a huge software project top-down in waterfall fashion, it’s easy to imagine how things might not end well. I’m not s

Yes, if a huge organisation tries to manage a huge software project top-down in waterfall fashion, it’s easy to imagine how things might not end well. I’m not sure anyone here is advocating that, though; certainly I am not. My original comment on the Agile Manifesto, which seems to have attracted most of the responses I’ve read here today, was only intended to make the point that without knowing what you’re trying to build, you have no way to define whether or not you have succeeded. I therefore don’t think it makes much sense to talk about valuing working software over comprehensive documentation in general terms as the Manifesto does. You can only know your software is working to the extent that you know how it’s supposed to work in the first place.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> My original comment on the Agile Manifesto, which seems to have attracted most of the responses I’ve read here today, was only intended to make the point that without knowing what you’re trying to build, you have no way to define whether or not you have succeeded. I therefore don’t think it makes much sense to talk about valuing working software over comprehensive documentation in general terms as the Manifesto does. You can only know your software is working to the extent that you know how it’s supposed to work in the first place. The Manifesto is pretty explicit that “over” in the “over” statements means exactly what it says, and isn't a misspelling of “instead of”; the Manifesto very much does not claim that there isn't some degree of documentation that serves an essential role in defining and achieving correctly-functioning software and that that isn't instrumentally important. I do wish, though, that rather than “over” statements with an explanation that “over” means “over” and not something else the manifesto had used something like “is/are served by” in place of “over” (with some light editing of the items on the sides to fit that structure): Individuals and interactions *are served by* processes and tools. Working software *is served by* appropriate documentation. Customer collaboration *is served by* contract structure. Ability to respond to change *is served by* planning. They are about subordination, not exclusion, of the things on the right in favor of those on the left.
- Chris_Newton 5y ago
  FWIW, I like your characterisation better. Saying that you value something as a means to achieve something else that you also value makes logical sense.
stefanve 5y ago
You're where implying that by stating that is is a straw men argument and that only ages ago those environments excited. like I said in the beginning of the discussing the manifesto reverenced to those type of environments.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> My original comment on the Agile Manifesto, which seems to have attracted most of the responses I’ve read here today, was only intended to make the point that without knowing what you’re trying to build, you have no way to define whether or not you have succeeded. I therefore don’t think it makes much sense to talk about valuing working software over comprehensive documentation in general terms as the Manifesto does. You can only know your software is working to the extent that you know how it’s supposed to work in the first place. The Manifesto is pretty explicit that “over” in the “over” statements means exactly what it says, and isn't a misspelling of “instead of”; the Manifesto very much does not claim that there isn't some degree of documentation that serves an essential role in defining and achieving correctly-functioning software and that that isn't instrumentally important. I do wish, though, that rather than “over” statements with an explanation that “over” means “over” and not something else the manifesto had used something like “is/are served by” in place of “over” (with some light editing of the items on the sides to fit that structure): Individuals and interactions *are served by* processes and tools. Working software *is served by* appropriate documentation. Customer collaboration *is served by* contract structure. Ability to respond to change *is served by* planning. They are about subordination, not exclusion, of the things on the right in favor of those on the left.

Chris_Newton 5y ago
FWIW, I like your characterisation better. Saying that you value something as a means to achieve something else that you also value makes logical sense.

stefanve 5y ago

You're where implying that by stating that is is a straw men argument and that only ages ago those environments excited. like I said in the beginning of the discussing the manifesto reverenced to those type of environments.