9 ms·
> On the one hand, yes, at this point "that's not true Agile" is starting to sound like a no true Scotsman fallacy. Always has been. There's nothing wrong wit
by dogleash 3y ago
> On the one hand, yes, at this point "that's not true Agile" is starting to sound like a no true Scotsman fallacy.
Always has been. There's nothing wrong with the manifesto as some food for thought. But the moment people started calling their development process "agile" we were all fucked. It became a brand.
The core con of agile is that there is something under the covers as long as we push beyond doing it wrong.
There is no there there.
The manifesto says: Along all the dimensions that exist in software development, here are four dimensions where the common practice in 2001 are wrong. Any other meaning is invented while interpreting scripture.
- argiopetech 3y agoFor what it's worth, the "Twelve Principles" document [0] is both more explicit and constraining. As you say, though, it is a framework for change (a goal to be incrementally approached), not a brand. [0] https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
- agentultra 3y ago> Any other meaning is invented while interpreting scripture. This is essentially what my sibling comment boils down to! Kudos for putting it more succinctly than I.