4 ms·

Exactly, dunno what to call it ... but every new concept starts out good, gets crazier and crazier and sometimes it may become good again, but most of the time

by ngc248 2y ago

Exactly, dunno what to call it ... but every new concept starts out good, gets crazier and crazier and sometimes it may become good again, but most of the time it just devolves into more crazy. In one of the orgs I worked, ther was a team which worked on the basic devops framework which the application teams could use to then configure their resources. It was a very sane approach.

pojzon 2y ago
Nah, it works like this: - we get a new methodology by remarkable ppl who can make it work really well - some managers/consultants decide to modify it, twist it, with reasoning that „its hard to do well” - the initial thing is lost in translation, twisted and bent to sell better by consultants or fit nonfunctional corps Agile, DevOps, Software Craftsmanship, testing methodologies all did share the same fate. Issue is that remarkable ppl are few and far in between. Medicore and subpar ppl are plenty.
- ekidd 2y ago
  Yup, it's a cycle. Take "agile", for example. Kent Beck (of "Extreme Programming" aka "XP" fame) is a joy to read. He thinks really deeply about software, and takes things to interesting extremes. But he's very pragmatic about it. Then XP becomes the Agile Manifesto. At this point, we're getting a bit silly but it's still an interesting idea. Then we start talking about paid "agile" consultants teaching big companies. Maybe it's still better than the alternative. And some of the best ideas, like unit testing, seep into the culture. (80s and 90s project planning and testing could be terrible in ways any undergrad could fix today.) And then, eventually, we have so-called "Scrum" being run by someone who learned about it third hand through a game of telephone. Every truly successful revolution lives long enough to become a gross and broken status quo. And so the cycle repeats. That said, Kent Beck is still writing, and he's still delightful to read. I knew his favorite themes 20 years ago, but sometimes I pick up his stuff and find a clever new insight.
- immibis 2y ago
  Disagree on point 2. It goes straight from successful for one team, to lost in translation. It's not managers' fault that it gets lost- it's just what happens when teams try to adopt something that worked well for one team, without the implicit context.

by ngc248 2y ago

pojzon 2y ago

Nah, it works like this: - we get a new methodology by remarkable ppl who can make it work really well - some managers/consultants decide to modify it, twist it, with reasoning that „its hard to do well” - the initial thing is lost in translation, twisted and bent to sell better by consultants or fit nonfunctional corps Agile, DevOps, Software Craftsmanship, testing methodologies all did share the same fate. Issue is that remarkable ppl are few and far in between. Medicore and subpar ppl are plenty.

ekidd 2y ago
Yup, it's a cycle. Take "agile", for example. Kent Beck (of "Extreme Programming" aka "XP" fame) is a joy to read. He thinks really deeply about software, and takes things to interesting extremes. But he's very pragmatic about it. Then XP becomes the Agile Manifesto. At this point, we're getting a bit silly but it's still an interesting idea. Then we start talking about paid "agile" consultants teaching big companies. Maybe it's still better than the alternative. And some of the best ideas, like unit testing, seep into the culture. (80s and 90s project planning and testing could be terrible in ways any undergrad could fix today.) And then, eventually, we have so-called "Scrum" being run by someone who learned about it third hand through a game of telephone. Every truly successful revolution lives long enough to become a gross and broken status quo. And so the cycle repeats. That said, Kent Beck is still writing, and he's still delightful to read. I knew his favorite themes 20 years ago, but sometimes I pick up his stuff and find a clever new insight.
immibis 2y ago
Disagree on point 2. It goes straight from successful for one team, to lost in translation. It's not managers' fault that it gets lost- it's just what happens when teams try to adopt something that worked well for one team, without the implicit context.