4 ms·
Agile came about somewhat as a reaction to huge processes like waterfall, RUP, etc. that were espoused by many books, conferences, etc. at the time as the best
by tdicola 12y ago
Agile came about somewhat as a reaction to huge processes like waterfall, RUP, etc. that were espoused by many books, conferences, etc. at the time as the best practice and 'right' way to build software. The point being made here is that the same thing is happening to agile now, a cargo cult mentality has set in that software needs to be 'agile' and agile is just buying the right certifications, reading the right books, going to the right conferences, etc. and high quality software will pop out on time at the end of your release. The reality is it's just not that easy to build software, there is no magic book, agile or otherwise, that you can blindly follow and expect good results.
> Where can i learn how to do my job correctly?
That is a really heavy question to answer. I could try give an opinion but I've only been developing software for 10 years. Maybe in another 20 or 30 years I'll have something good to tell you. The fact is you just need to build things for many years and see what succeeds, what fails, and what you can learn from each success and failure.
- pjmlp 12y agoPretty much this. I have been developing software for almost 30 years now. Not everything was bad about waterfall, RUP, UML, Booch and related methods. As not everything is good about every agile variant out there. The secret, if any, is trying to find a good mix. Which is very difficult given the constraints in team member skills, what the sales team promises to the customer, what the customer is willing to pay for, and what the managers what to ear and sell to the customers. Specially when most companies treat developers as replaceable cogs.
- curiously 12y agoYour last two sentences really stood out. I don't have nearly as much experience as you do but I've seen the curious cycle of how software becomes so much more than just a process from engineers. Sales, customers, managers, and engineers all seem to influence the software even when they are not supposed to (sales guy who promises the world but realizes we can't deliver or engineer who builds the world but realizes they can't sell). Developers are treated like robots. Mentally taxing labor like software development is not viewed in the same professional light as lawyers or doctors. The lowest cost seems to prevail and managers and business owners are always on the look out for reducing their overhead cost. Even the most generous and good hearted ex-engineer turned CEO has to view the engineers as a cost overhead. This is why unless a business has monopoly, it cannot invest in engineers, it is constantly looking for a turnover to maintain the low overhead. The last part really sickens me and especially when people cry why is it so hard to find developers? It's hard when you aren't willing to pay the true cost.
- InclinedPlane 12y agoYup. Treat devs like cogs, treat software creation life factory work, then complain about how hard it is to find talent and execute on big projects. Software is creative work, treat your team like a band. Maybe if you're lucky you can find a replacement for the bass player if he quits, but realistically when your team changes the way you get work done and the kind of work you'll get done will change too.
- InclinedPlane 12y agoYup. Treat devs like cogs, treat software creation life factory work, then complain about how hard it is to find talent and execute on big projects. Software is creative work, treat your team like a band. Maybe if you're lucky you can find a replacement for the bass player if he quits, but realistically when your team changes the way you get work done and the kind off work you'll get done will change too.