Agile is snake oil; Nu-softdev is a failure

lmao the absolute state of tech, agile is pure liberal cultist shit

this. agile is literally just "hurr durr let's split up our problems into small easily addressable pieces", and then when they come across an "EPIC", shit is fucked. Agile doesn't even have any meaning. people are just like "i'm agile!", and then they start doing a bunch of pretend processes and software dev is no different than before except what was mentioned above.

Fuck Agile. Our team fails to deliver every Sprint goal because it is unnatural for software development. If I have to do 1 more faggy estimation with cards, someone is gonna eat a bullet, probably my project manager.

pajeet-tier argument

...

holy shit scrum and agile are fucking autism

When agile is done right, it's a pleasure. Happy client, happy team.

Agile was created for man, not man for Agile. If you're slavishly following rules and processes, you're misusing Agile.

agile is good with a client that actually knows what to do

Aye, and I'll show you a true scottish agile

It's not a No True Scotsman fallacy because you can point to actual agile projects, which are successful, and the criteria for determining as such is not ad hoc.

all that proves is that Agile doesn't always completely fuck everything up

Threads like this remind me that I am not insane. Agile is driving me into an early grave and everyone around me laughs because "You just don't get it! Agile is great! Way better than the old system!"

This shit is so true its ridiculous. Any valid argument I make is cock blocked by this garbage or by "It's better than before"

Attached: 7a611a3ddde50b696a5dc53da56ad7ad86377d3d1bf2f025344ded7f25647f0e.jpg (500x690, 55.34K)

no you fucking can't. nothing made in the generation of agile is good. name one piece of software so i can laugh at your gay ass. literally all they accomplished is replacing the menu with a hamburger icon

No one can do agile properly, it's a bunch of unspecific garbage and no one can agree on what it means.

Yeah but the whole idea behind agile was that the customer doesn't know what they want. If the client knows what they want agile is pointless because you can do most of the planning upfront and be very clear on what needs doing.

Precisely this. Everybody bitching about agile seems to miss that, or has never built a big beautiful infrastructure only to have the client make a "slight" adjustment to their requirements, thus rendering all of the work useless.

Agile is obviously shit, but what do we replace it with? The reason companies like agile is because it makes them attractive to the customer since the customer doesn't have to be as responsible.

It's very common that system requirements change as development occurs over time. All agile means is that developers can respond to the changes as they are requested.

The question is how do you deal with changing system requirements over the development of the project? Do you let the project cost blow out to double or triple the original estimates that assume the requirements remain static? The fact is that the earlier in the project that you change the requirements, the cheaper in the long run that the project will cost; and also the later in the project that you change the requirements, the more expensive in the long run that the project will cost.

Agile is not shit, you're shit. You guys sound like MGTOW incels, projecting your personal failures onto the world around you.

>>>Zig Forums

What actually prevents project demands from being made immutable?

Double-digit IQ confirmed.

The project is serving the business needs of a client, which are dynamic and based on their vision, company politics/employee turnover, and customer feedback.

Theoretically, you could agree that any requirements gathered in the analysis stage of the project will remain immutable. In practice, what this means is the client would probably receive a software solution that doesn't quite accurately fulfill their needs. The reason for this is because clients don't necessarily understand every single minute detail (as well as the consequences of each detail) of their information processes and therefore, they won't advocate for those details. It would be the system analyst's responsibility to draw this kind of detail out from the stakeholders.

Then you'd start a new project to refactor the initial product, clearly outlining your criticisms.

That is more time and money spent to get the same result (at best) as an iterative process. This is why good client project managers will not use waterfall.

fucking cultists

How does Agile prevent this? Agile doesn't eliminate the need for software architecture, it just takes it out of the trackers. The client can easily render all the "Agile" work useless just the same as any other organization method. And generally speaking, if your architecture can't support new features (that aren't wildly out of scope), what the hell were you doing? Or are you really just saying to make everything microservices (hint, that's just the Unix philosophy rebranded) It's like you've mixed five different issues together and labeled the mythical solution as "Agile."

All it means is that they use trello or some equivalent kanban-cuck software to "organize". It's retarded bloat created in an attempt to make females and female derivatives feel like they are doing something worthwhile with company time.

or sticky notes if they're literal niggers

No it doesn't.
Not without contradicting the acceptance criteria of previous sprints. Deliveries should fail-fast; that's not possible in a waterfall.
No, but it's the same principle but applied to process instead of architecture.

Before Agile there was Excel, and it was good.

Tell us dear Agile pros and black belt faggots, how is the state of software today? Your name is on the mess. You own it all.

We just write stories that read: "As a developer, I want..."

Nobody ITT has said anything about waterfall other than Agile cultists. All you're saying here is that you are delivering small features quickly. Agile didn't patent that. You don't need shitty children's card games, "user stories," or weird names for normal things (meetings are SCRUM now!!) to do that.

There is no agile patent on anything. Agile is the name of one type of iterative software development to support the agile change in requirements as development occurs. People are bitching that agile is a problem when it's not. It's one solution to the real problem of stakeholders who cannot communicate the complete entirety of requirements at the very beginning of software development.

I don't, in theory, have anything against agile. The customer doesn't know what they want, and the best way to give it to them is in small steps.

The problem that I have is that my organization is so beholden to time-boxes that a coworker has had time to read The Name of the Wind in the space between sprints over the last month, because we have under committed to the sprints that bad (stories have been over pointed due to risks that have not manifested) and have not accounted for it.

Attached: 5613312d8763e584bbc5241192ebd4fb504c1a6882db07da4366d6ae72f96468.jpg (720x720, 25.59K)

Agile is a problem in and of itself because it is stupid and infantile. When people talk about software development like they're a bunch of gradeschoolers, it makes them think stupid. People begin putting methodology above the practical reality-- it's a dogma. Ironically, it's more "agile" to simply have no set methodology at all. Programmers should do what makes sense and works in the given situation.

People are responding to your hackneyed scenarios. Again, iterative development can't save you from total overhaul demands, and it can't save you from having spaghetti architecture that doesn't grow or refactor properly. In fact, Agile encourages spaghetti by heavily emphasizing nebulous features rather than data layouts.

Attached: OHHHRLYYY.jpg (720x628, 45.22K)

They might not use waterfall, but something like RAD seems much more reasonable than Agile. At least this way it's likely you'll actually ship something on time.

Attached: grin.png (200x200, 90.43K)

Use the right tool for the job. RAD has its place, as does Agile.

Probably helps if software developers and QA are sent on Agile courses. It helped me. No system is perfect but as long as everyone agrees (Product Owner, Scrum Master and Dev/QA) on what the deliverables are each sprint generally it should work. Whatever doesn't work needs to be raised in retrospectives.

If Scrum isn't working for the team, consider Kanban.

I find Agile fails if the team is bad or you have a bad scrum master (my current situation).

...

How to make software great again: Create a new oppucation, the project demand mediator (PDM). Stakeholders then discuss, with the PDM, their user stories and visions. The PDM then steers the whole vision towards a coherent specification, which is then passed to the programming company (and not earlier). The programming company then makes a development plan, optimises it, and starts developing. The programming company can still give regular (every 25% of the way maybe?) status reports and presentations to the customer, they can then, via the PDM, make minor adjustments to the plan.
This way, almost all responsibility lies with the customer, and the programming company is actually kind enough to give status updates from time to time to give the customer the chance to detect their own failures early.
The PDM is a coder, but needs social skills. He knows how to understand the thought processes of different kinds of people. He knows how to moderate a discussion.
If there still are some parts of the specifications that are unclear, they will be left out, or a lowest common denominator of all possible approaches is chosen to be implemented.

Ah yes, if only the client were more considerate of the code monkey who's going to be punching the keys, rather than his own business needs, amirite?

It already exists; embed related. However, you're not going to see a lot of business analysts these days, because most code shops are domain-oriented and can therefore understand the client's needs without one, spending the money on something more useful instead. Again, it would be autist paradise to have a middle man to bridge every specialty, but budgets are a thing.

Attached: business analysts.webm (640x480, 2.05M)

It's not about being considerate, it's about being efficient. Every failed iteration wastes time and money. Laying out the requirements to a reasonably complete state early on in the process makes sure the budget isn't wasted in unproductive developer time when it could be invested in something else.
Bullshit. Autists hate bureocracy. It's the normalfag managers who want to have more useless procedures in place.

That kind of scenario isn't so common but it does happen. For that scenario where the company's information processing requirements run on black magic, I would offer a couple of directions as solutions.

The first one is a matter of iterative prototyping of software to run for a few months. For example I'd continually write a series of protoype software for the period of six months. That is probably enough time to work out a reasonable set of specifications. I'd be writing the complete system after that time of exploration.

The second one is to break up the project into phases. In the first phase, I'll write a series of small tools that perform small and well defined tasks. These tools are not intended to be integrated into a single cohesive system. This process gives me significant insight about the requirements. If the system I've delivered adequately meets the business requirements, my job ends there. Otherwise, the next phase of the job is to refactor or recreate the system into an integrated whole.

Sure, but they also love to have a single-minded focus on actual programming.

waterfall means taking forever to release a new version
example: windows 98, then windows 2000

agile means releasing a new small update all the time

example: some app that gets updates multiple times per month, as opposed to slow and huge updates

Agile is fucking cancer for everyone apparently

the next generation methodology will skip testing, then coding altogether.

some agile people talk about pushing to production multiple times per day
it's not no testing, you just do automated testing, such as with selenium

...

These are just names of ideas. If you have your own personal way to develop and deliver your software efficiently, then good for you. However if you ever need to work within a team of developers, there will need to be a way to coordinate formal ways of getting shit done. That's why these techniques and tools get created.

Bad example, since Windows 2000 was one of the best operating systems ever made.

using it as an example for slow releases
1998 -> 2000 is 2 years, which is forever by agile standards
with agile, you're supposed to make lots of small updates/releases rather than a few big and infrequent ones
windows used to have service packs, which were big updates that came out every now and then
agile encourages people to build iteratively and to meet deadlines
agile is all about deadlines, waterfall (the slow old stuff) is about features and program-related stuff
guess which is better for budget-oriented project managers? agile, by far
"oops, we can't ship on time" is a very common thing with waterfall
with agile, it's "well we met the deadline but we couldn't finish all the optional features and there are still a couple quirks"

No that's what "incremental" means.

Competent programmers who read books and don't need tutorial videos to create Hello World.

Attached: IMG_20190105_104431_439.jpg (890x899, 159.51K)

Is "she" a guy? She doesn't have boobs. Maybe she is a trap!

Nah you can see her boobs they're just pretty small

got me good. nice one user

Thats a 100% hit rate for my last working environment which I left for various reasons

never change, Zig Forums

But they didn't jump from Win98 straight to Win2000. Actually, the progress at that time was from Win98 to WinXP, and it was much more gradual:
Bretty agile for MS standards.

Is that that meme position name which is supposed to be developer, QA, sysadmin, network admin and service desk rolled all into one, where the physical employee is treated like a hypervisor upon which various roles are stacked like virtual machines?

waterfall: don't ship at all
agile: ship an imperfect project
which is better, buddy?

nah, that's more DevSecOps
devsecops.org/

Kek. You simpleton didn't even notice that the mouse is to the LEFT of the keyboard. She's obviously a LARPer.
Also, what man has so little muscle? Her arms are like fucking twigs.

FUCKING CUCKS
What.
CoC
Like, edible?
??
Is this actually serious?

things that never happened
kys

That's not what that refers to, brainlet. You're in over yourhead.