7 ms·

What are the more modern methodologies?

meiraleal 2y ago
Scrum, which means letting a clueless "scrum master" and "product owner" change directions twice a week so they can pretend to be working.
- cess11 2y ago
  One must remember, Scrum is not agile.
  - Viliam1234 2y ago
    Also, Scrum-as-practiced-in-most-software-companies is not Scrum.
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      And real communism has never been tried
      - Viliam1234 2y ago
        More like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law Most people are incompetent at what they do. That includes managers at software companies.
- plagiarist 2y ago
  You know what would make us all faster? The entire team in a meeting talking about which JIRA tickets they moved yesterday and which ones they plan to move today. We should also ask the same in-depth technical questions on projects which we have already asked that developer a dozen times.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    Why would that make us all faster? Also, is faster better, or better is better? Waterfall development is the most appropriate way to develop software, most of the times. CRUDs developed by startups don't change requirements often, their clueless managers that change their minds as they get to understand what they should already know before starting the project.
    - begueradj 2y ago
      I heard Kent Beck (if my memory is good) that Waterfall is the method used at Facebook (he worked there)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      > Waterfall development is the most appropriate way to develop software, most of the times. This is only true if you work on unimportant projects where delays and failures are acceptable.
      - meiraleal 2y ago
        > This is only true if you work on unimportant projects where delays and failures are acceptable. And SCRUM only for important project you can release crap full of bugs and wrong use cases every 2 weeks.
        Jtsummers 2y ago
        That's a strange non sequitur. A statement against Waterfall is not a statement for Scrum (no reason to shout, I get that you don't like it but shouting its name is weird). Please, point out non-trivial successful (delivered on time, on budget, and with all initially planned features) Waterfall projects that did not modify Waterfall into something sensible (that is, incorporated feedback loops and probably executed as a series of iterations rather than one 5-year long project with hard distinctions between each phase).
intelVISA 2y ago
"hey $name, is what you're working on going to benefit the customer" no need for meetings, PMs or frameworks if it's a small shop

Scrum, which means letting a clueless "scrum master" and "product owner" change directions twice a week so they can pretend to be working.

cess11 2y ago
One must remember, Scrum is not agile.
- Viliam1234 2y ago
  Also, Scrum-as-practiced-in-most-software-companies is not Scrum.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    And real communism has never been tried
    - Viliam1234 2y ago
      More like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law Most people are incompetent at what they do. That includes managers at software companies.
plagiarist 2y ago
You know what would make us all faster? The entire team in a meeting talking about which JIRA tickets they moved yesterday and which ones they plan to move today. We should also ask the same in-depth technical questions on projects which we have already asked that developer a dozen times.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  Why would that make us all faster? Also, is faster better, or better is better? Waterfall development is the most appropriate way to develop software, most of the times. CRUDs developed by startups don't change requirements often, their clueless managers that change their minds as they get to understand what they should already know before starting the project.
  - begueradj 2y ago
    I heard Kent Beck (if my memory is good) that Waterfall is the method used at Facebook (he worked there)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    > Waterfall development is the most appropriate way to develop software, most of the times. This is only true if you work on unimportant projects where delays and failures are acceptable.
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      > This is only true if you work on unimportant projects where delays and failures are acceptable. And SCRUM only for important project you can release crap full of bugs and wrong use cases every 2 weeks.
      - Jtsummers 2y ago
        That's a strange non sequitur. A statement against Waterfall is not a statement for Scrum (no reason to shout, I get that you don't like it but shouting its name is weird). Please, point out non-trivial successful (delivered on time, on budget, and with all initially planned features) Waterfall projects that did not modify Waterfall into something sensible (that is, incorporated feedback loops and probably executed as a series of iterations rather than one 5-year long project with hard distinctions between each phase).

intelVISA 2y ago

"hey $name, is what you're working on going to benefit the customer" no need for meetings, PMs or frameworks if it's a small shop