As the article touches on, Agile discussions seem to often rely on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy -- if it doesn't work, it wasn't really Agile, so the definiti

As the article touches on, Agile discussions seem to often rely on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy -- if it doesn't work, it wasn't really Agile, so the definition becomes slippery enough to evade a lot of criticism. I think that, because of this, trying to push the umbrella term "Agile" makes it more difficult to evaluate the sum of the ideas than if you were to evaluate each idea on its own merit. Each person can claim some permutation of the sum parts (and even add some more), and assign them the title of "true Agile". It's something I saw when I was going through SOA training for work as well. There's those that swear that heavy contracts are required for "true" SOA, and REST can't provide those. And there's those who swear the focus should be on the "service oriented" aspect without all the SOAP overhead, and that core is the "true" SOA. Personally, I try to avoid using the term "SOA" now and just stick to the technical description of what I'm talking about.. hell, I'm almost afraid to put it on my resume.