5 ms·

If Agile is the ability to respond to change then it's obviously a matter of good craft because software has never been made pliable with a magic methodology wa

If Agile is the ability to respond to change then it's obviously a matter of good craft because software has never been made pliable with a magic methodology wand. Of course you'll never hear a consultant talk about that, because there is no shortcut to good craft. So they'll usually resolve to violate the root principle of Agile upfront and focus on tools and processes rather than on individuals and interactions.

collyw 13y ago
"If Agile is the ability to respond to change then it's obviously a matter of good craft because software has never been made pliable with a magic methodology wand". To me this would suggest a good design in the first place, rather than a load of automated tests. Maybe waterfall is more agile than agile...
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  A major motivation of agile is the ability to respond to change in requirements occurring during the time between project initiation and 1.0 release. This kind of change is, experience has shown, a major source of the "requirements problem" which was noted as far back as the 1970s. Waterfall methods (except, perhaps, the small unit of work iterated waterfall approach that is sometimes seen as a way of being agile and often criticized by practitioners of, particularly, Scrum as not-agile) aren't equipped to deal with this kind of change. But Agile isn't a set of methods, it's an approach to selecting methods. So, it's possible -- though perhaps unlikely -- that for certain teams in certain circumstances Waterfall is more Agile than, say, Scrum or XP.
- thibauts 13y ago
  What this suggests to me is that you'll be able to respond to change if the pieces of code you write can be reorganized. This happens when separation of concerns is properly handled, among other things. Change will not happen if you don't. Whatever the methodology. Waterfall can be great if the problem space is already well defined and understood, as implementing a protocol by spec. The specs will not change, and if they are well understood you can plan and estimate a good deal.

collyw 13y ago

"If Agile is the ability to respond to change then it's obviously a matter of good craft because software has never been made pliable with a magic methodology wand". To me this would suggest a good design in the first place, rather than a load of automated tests. Maybe waterfall is more agile than agile...

dragonwriter 13y ago
A major motivation of agile is the ability to respond to change in requirements occurring during the time between project initiation and 1.0 release. This kind of change is, experience has shown, a major source of the "requirements problem" which was noted as far back as the 1970s. Waterfall methods (except, perhaps, the small unit of work iterated waterfall approach that is sometimes seen as a way of being agile and often criticized by practitioners of, particularly, Scrum as not-agile) aren't equipped to deal with this kind of change. But Agile isn't a set of methods, it's an approach to selecting methods. So, it's possible -- though perhaps unlikely -- that for certain teams in certain circumstances Waterfall is more Agile than, say, Scrum or XP.
thibauts 13y ago
What this suggests to me is that you'll be able to respond to change if the pieces of code you write can be reorganized. This happens when separation of concerns is properly handled, among other things. Change will not happen if you don't. Whatever the methodology. Waterfall can be great if the problem space is already well defined and understood, as implementing a protocol by spec. The specs will not change, and if they are well understood you can plan and estimate a good deal.