3 ms·

In my experience "agile" isn't really a thing, more an excuse or reason to not follow any rules at all. Devs get to play at building whatever they like, solvin

In my experience "agile" isn't really a thing, more an excuse or reason to not follow any rules at all. Devs get to play at building whatever they like, solving the problems that interest them in a haphazard way and leaving behind a trail of half-written, semi-functional code with little or no documentation to allow anyone to work with them. As soon as anyone suggests that there's a plan, or god-forbid, an objective or expected outcome from the invested money, everyone suddenly scream, "AGILE" and that, apparently, is enough to shutdown any and all detractors. But then, try to suggest that there's a requirement that has changed or come to light and suddenly the "agile is open to new requirements" part of the approach is forgotten as the "progress" that's been made so far is too precious to change. /rant

UK-AL 13y ago
That's odd because agile methods like scrum have a definition of done, which has to be complete before you can class an issue as done. definition of Done usually includes things like written code, unit tests, code review, documented etc I suspect most people doing a agile, don't actually do agile. And think its a term for little structure. Agile methods, such as XP programming are highly disciplined methods, more so than traditional. The main difference is that they react to customer change, and don't follow plan than stretches 6 months into the future. The priorities of tasks can change from sprint to sprint. Allowing the team to react to the outside world.