Live data from Hacker News

Saying goodbye to Agile

lewiscampbell.tech

61–70 of 271 posts

Re: Saying goodbye to Agile

#61

Agile, as implemented in every big company that I've worked for, was a lie. It was really telling at a smaller company that was trying to behave like a big company. I asked a coworker (who had great metrics) what the secret was for dealing with the middle-management-heavy and quite dysfunctional environment. He told me how he did it. Paraphrased: "It's easy. During each sprint, I work on the next sprint's work. Once…

How did he see into the future to know which work he'd be doing on the next sprint, and how did he also finish the current sprint's work with a bullseye thus allowing the next sprint's to begin and match it?

Not the op, but you only commit to what you already did in this sprint.

So this sprint shows what you delivered 2 sprints ago, next sprint will be the work you just finished.

Re: Saying goodbye to Agile

#62
post #13

There's an interesting phenomenon that Agile (capital A) has exposed me to, and once I saw it due to Agile I've seen parallels elsewhere. In that: if it fails, it is only considered evidence that you were not doing it enough . The solution can never be at fault, it's your execution, or your devotion to the process (in this case) that was faulty. It's also true for Cloud providers; that they're not suited for certain…

It's basicy gas lighting at this point

Re: Saying goodbye to Agile

#63
I watched a video a few years ago where one of Kent Beck, Martin Fowler, Jeff Sutherland, Ken Schwaber, I don't remember who exactly, explained what they wanted to do with the Agile Manifesto, what screwed up. He explained that they wanted to give guidelines, not a strict rules. They wanted flexibility. But people started selling this as courses, business, rules. Some Agile practitioners become fanatics on the topic. And this created misunderstanding and chaos :D

For 20 years, I have seen it working and not working, and the reasons are a lot. It can be affected of level of expertise, quality of documentation, pressure from management, engagement of the clients, etc.

Simple example of failing, and how one of my team overcome it. There is no specification. Option 1: team complains that the specification is bad, and this makes the code quality bad. Option 2: the team pro-actively prepared the specifications, gave them to the client for approval. Writing the specification was, a kind of, added flexibility, that was introduced in the sprints.

Another example, why should the sprints be fixed at 2 weeks. Sometimes, people try to finish for two weeks and they produce bad quality code, because they are time pressured. Be flexible and make them 3 weeks, if the sprint includes things like, preparing specifications, or if the sprint includes pauses for bug fixing. :)

So it is not the Agile that makes the project successful, it is the people. Agile just help for tracking where you are , and what you need to do ;)

Now with AI, you can use Agile again, there are agentic frameworks that support it and they give good results, in my opinion. If the people use it wisely, think what they do, and try to do things better, it will work. Of people are lazy, don't know what they are doing, don't have expertise on software development, it will fail :)

Re: Saying goodbye to Agile

#64
post #13

There's an interesting phenomenon that Agile (capital A) has exposed me to, and once I saw it due to Agile I've seen parallels elsewhere. In that: if it fails, it is only considered evidence that you were not doing it enough . The solution can never be at fault, it's your execution, or your devotion to the process (in this case) that was faulty. It's also true for Cloud providers; that they're not suited for certain…

[dead]

Re: Saying goodbye to Agile

#65

I've come to dread any formalization of Agile. Agile development is fine. I've built a 40+ engineering team with it. I can vouch for its effectiveness when applied to small, excellent teams. For reference, here's all the Agile you need, it's 4 sentences: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding t…

> […] when applied to small, excellent teams.

Isn't that the biggest issue here, though? I think all of us can agree on the four sentences you wrote, but this only works in a team of professionals with shared goals (and alignment on them!), each individually competent and motivated.

That is the case for a small founder team and maybe a while after that if you're lucky, but IME the more people join a company, the more the alignment and median expertise lessen. At some point, you need to introduce control mechanisms and additional communication tools to rake in the outliers.

I don't really have a better answer, though…

Re: Saying goodbye to Agile

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is the agent writes the specs and the human reviews and revises or asks for another rewrite that takes 90 seconds or less. So specs are both cheaper and better than anything I've seen before. They still get a lot wrong and it is hard to review them very carefully, but its easier than reviewing code to suss out design intent.

The point is that sometimes you don't know the spec is wrong until you've built the software and it's being used.

Still though, that cycle can be iterated many times in a single day. Write a spec, let the agent build it, use the software, evaluate results, repeat.

Re: Saying goodbye to Agile

#68
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that sometimes you don't know the spec is wrong until you've built the software and it's being used.

Still though, that cycle can be iterated many times in a single day. Write a spec, let the agent build it, use the software, evaluate results, repeat.

Yes, that's agile software development.

Re: Saying goodbye to Agile

#69
A requirement specification is how you prompt software engineers. One-shotting it doesn't work (waterfall). You need to put the SEs in planning mode. They will ask you questions and refine the plan. And you end up with a better plan. But if you make it too complicated the plan will go off the rails. So, you need to make them assign Fibonacci tokens to their planned tasks. Now you have a better plan and you can assign your SEs to tasks and get them working on it. Fibonacci tokens are not time units. This is very important. But you will run out of tokens after two weeks. So you need to buy some extra pizza tokens and make them work until midnight (crunch time!). That's how you get the job done. Every time. Sort of.

I bet some jerk is going to organize a multi agent scrum process at some point and burn some tokens on this nonsense.

Re: Saying goodbye to Agile

#70
post #36

TFA first claims that agile invented none of the things it encompasses, seems not to challenge those claims, but then just jumps to agile is dead because LLMs can code based on spec. This is just a confusing and confused article. Agile just finally embraced that specs are incomplete and can even be wrong because the writer of the spec does not yet really know or understand what they want. So they need working softwar…

Iterative development has existed since forever, since earlier than written history.

It is not something invented by the Agile proponents.

They have proposed a much more specific variant of iterative development, which at least as I have seen it implemented in any company which claimed to implement it, was really bad in comparison with the right ways of organizing development work, which I have seen elsewhere.

Any high quality product must be designed starting from a good written specification. Obviously, almost always the initial specification must pass through one or more update cycles, after experience is gathered through the implementation. This has always been universally used, not just by Agile practitioners.

There have always existed bad managers, who wrongly believed that a development process can always be linear and who did not include in their timelines the necessity for loops, but that was just bad management, so if Agile proponents pointed to such cases, those were just strawmen, not the best existing practices.

Post reply on HN