So much of the rhetoric surrounding 'Agile' is, as stated in the article, 'Waterfall'-bashing. But I don't subscribe to the idea that the actual original intent

So much of the rhetoric surrounding 'Agile' is, as stated in the article, 'Waterfall'-bashing. But I don't subscribe to the idea that the actual original intentions behind it are somehow infallible or even necessarily helpful the way the article and so many proponents do. I've been involved in half a dozen projects that adopted varying sorts of that process, from small teams to massive juggernauts, and never once have I seen it not result in people tripping over each other or railing against the process. Were those the result of poor implementation? To varying degrees, absolutely. But these and similar experiences from many people I know, coupled with the alarming degree of "if it's going poorly they're doing it wrong" from proponents, leave me with the firm conviction that this isn't just a constantly-abused practice. It's a set of tenets that apparently worked in principle for someone at some point but simply are not suited for the projects and environments I've encountered or discussed with colleagues. People will dismiss that, which is fine (anecdotes are anecdotes, even in quantity), but I'd call such a range of practical failure pretty damning for something that's supposed to be so enabling.