2024-06-07 02:25:33
2024-06-06 13:38:27
2024-06-06 13:38:27
43656151
I'm not even an Agile evangelist. I've used Agile in the past. I think it has great uses when done right but often it is not. That's not a No True Scotsman fallacy either. It's about understanding why aspects of Agile Methodologies work and exist and adapting them to your particular scenario. For example, the whole "no requirements" at the start thing. Does that literally mean it breaks Agile rules to not have starting requirements? First off, if you think there are universal etched in stone rules of Agile you already are probably off to a bad start. Second, it really depends on what you are building. Are you building something from scratch that you have no idea what is and will do? Probably need to be light on the hard R requirements on day 1, if you have any at all. Are you replacing a tried and true system with a new stack or deployment environment? Then you'll probably end up having a good number of hard R requirements but still want to err on the lighter side since a lot of legacy systems build up a lot of cruft that actually can be jettisoned. Being Agile is not setting out to build a car and saying, "Well according to 'the rules of Agile' we can't presume how many wheels this thing will have or if it has wheels at all!" #rant #programming
John Douglas Porter likes this.
reshared this
Andrew and Programming Feed reshared this.
tomgrzybow
in reply to Hank G ☑️ • • •Hank G ☑️ likes this.
Hank G ☑️
in reply to tomgrzybow • •Martijn Vos
in reply to Hank G ☑️ • • •@Hank G ☑️
I always get a bit sad when I see people complain about Agile or Scrum being the worst thing ever. I do understand it, because they've been done wrong so often, and the names have been applied to so much crap, that I get that people get a bad taste in their mouth from it.
But quite often they do prefer working by Agile principles, because they're natural principles. It's not like they're working according to a strict protocol with all the requirements spec'ed up in extreme detail up front; to the contrary, they're often working more agile than the companies shouting how Agile they are.
The problem isn't Agile. It's not even Scrum. The problem is that these words were launched to promote a more flexible and humane way of working in large companies, exactly by taking advantage of large companies' tendency to latch onto trends and buzzwords. And they latched onto these. But despite them latching onto these words, mo
... show more@Hank G ☑️
I always get a bit sad when I see people complain about Agile or Scrum being the worst thing ever. I do understand it, because they've been done wrong so often, and the names have been applied to so much crap, that I get that people get a bad taste in their mouth from it.
But quite often they do prefer working by Agile principles, because they're natural principles. It's not like they're working according to a strict protocol with all the requirements spec'ed up in extreme detail up front; to the contrary, they're often working more agile than the companies shouting how Agile they are.
The problem isn't Agile. It's not even Scrum. The problem is that these words were launched to promote a more flexible and humane way of working in large companies, exactly by taking advantage of large companies' tendency to latch onto trends and buzzwords. And they latched onto these. But despite them latching onto these words, most large companies still have a culture that's adverse to an agile way of working. But now they paste these words over it to show how good they are.
But that doesn't make Agile bad. It might make it meaningless. It mostly makes the companies liars, but they already were that anyway. It's how they operate. And that is the real problem.
Hank G ☑️ likes this.
tomgrzybow
in reply to Hank G ☑️ • • •Hank G ☑️ likes this.
tomgrzybow
in reply to Hank G ☑️ • • •Hank G ☑️ likes this.
randygalbraith
in reply to Hank G ☑️ • • •Hank G ☑️ likes this.
tomgrzybow
in reply to Hank G ☑️ • • •Debugging.
Hank G ☑️ likes this.