I completely agree with this. Yeah, it's not like they don't work at all, it's that they work to some degree. And, yeah, I think a lot of devs would agree that

I completely agree with this. Yeah, it's not like they don't work at all, it's that they work to some degree. And, yeah, I think a lot of devs would agree that the traditional waterfall is not as good a process as agile. You could say that it's an antiprocess, whose basic idea is that the old inflexible waterfall with its overly structured teams is inefficient. Yes, small, tight-knit teams working closely together and iterating quickly is much more productive, creative and rewarding way to work. ... although, in my humble opinion, the one thing that agile really needs to stress more (that is key in the waterfall) is requirements. A (couple of) dedicated rounds of requirements where you talk with users (and stakeholders) saves a ton of dev time - agile does have requirements, but at least in my experience, devs seems to gloss over it.