|
Griff, at some level I'd agree with you - we've all seen the new new thing come and go.
Back in my Science Systems days we sometimes used a formal methodology called Dynamic System Development Methodology (DSDM) where appropriate.
It was great for stuff like web pages and user interfaces. Not so great for database design and complex real-time stuff. It was agile before Agile ... another tool in our toolbox to use for the right widget.
I don't believe that agile works in all cases, in others it's a no brainer and doesn't need a fancy title. As soon as someone takes a common-sense idea, gives it a fancy newspeak title, publishes a book or two and commends it's universal use I'm turned off (what was that Universal something or other that was all the rage 10 years ago?!!!)
I used to belong to the Anarchy Society, but I didn't like the rules.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that all these b***rds want something for nothing.
They *won't* pay the money for the ability, they *won't* work it out, they just want a formula to apply to save them having to think or analyse or do justice. They want to be the guy senior management pats on the head for saving x-amount of salary by hiring the cheapest.
And when the product isn't up to scratch, they're long gone.
Fortunately where I work they pay well, recruit quality and avoid all gimmicks.
As for Polish plumbers, I hired a local West Country man to hack my garden ready for the Winter. He quoted £35 to nuke the hedges back to the Stone Age, a ridiculously low quote. He turned up on Saturday and did a superb job in pouring rain. I paid him £45. Cheap at the price, the guy was a genuine grafter, and I don't miss the extra tenner.
Agile evangelists are for people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
At my company we use the agile dev process lightly - it's mainly common sense and good planning that allows us to identify and work on small pieces of functionality that can be safely integrated into our product without causing instability. Task estimates are set by developers and vetted by dev managers (all of whom have been hard-core devs in the past and still know their s---). Our daily status meetings are brief (10 mins for a team of 10) and to the point, and everyone on the team has a pretty good idea of what the others are working on. Our public APIs are well documented (the MSDN-style documentation is produced as part of the nightly build) and all check-ins undergo a brief code review.
I know we're not the only team that works like this, but posts at CP sure make me think so sometimes. 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with agile per se, but idiots are a problem no matter what system you implement.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Pipe welding doesn't pay that well in the UK - the country is apparently full of Polish plumbers who can do it for a cup of tea and a fiver... 
[Queue song: "I wanna be a cowboy", by Boys Don't Cry]
Go west young man... go west [^]
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect it's like any paradigm. Those that need strictly enforced rules ("but agile says it has to be done this way, every time") aren't imaginative enough to adapt and succeed when necessary.
Are all facets of any process necessary on any project? I suppose one could argue that noting a typo in some text on page A of the application is requirements gathering. But, sometimes, that's it; we don't need a whole process to discuss and mull over the implications of making that fix.
OTOH, some things are complex enough that nobody could imagine all the test cases without putting a little of it in place and seeing it in action. I think that's what agile brings, is making sure everyone has that understanding up front, and that it's not panties-in-a-bunch time when some corner case reveals itself. It's just time to adapt.
|
|
|
|
|
Agile? Hmm... oh yeah, that's the thing that all the younger developers get hung up in while I get work done! 
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: Note that the following applies to Scrum, not necessarily all of Agile.
"
In Scrum, Development Team members are called “developers,“ regardless of their background, job title, or skill set. Development Team members may have experience in software engineering, testing, architecture and design, graphic design, database administration, business analysis, technical writing, or other similar specialties. Regardless of what their resume says, they are now “developers“ as far as Scrum is concerned. They should burn their business cards and focus on delivering value in the form of working software. Also, there are no subteams in Scrum, such as testing or QA. The Development Team performs all of the work required to deliver the done increment of the software product. It’s important to note that just because a team member is called a developer, this does not necessarily mean that they will be developing (writing) code. Depending on the task, they may be developing architecture, developing user interface or design, developing test cases, developing database objects, developing installers, or developing documentation, etc. Everyone develops something.
"
-- Professional Scrum Development with Microsoft® Visual Studio® 2012, Richard Hundhausen
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't take a genius to realise that if a term is already used for something else within a system (in this case "developer"), you have to name your new thing with a different word.
One would think that anyone who worked in software would realise that without having to be told (unless they believe in using just one variable name in each program).
We call them "scrum teams" -- and yes, there are developers in the teams.
And testers, etc.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Simply Agile is a myth. The only way that someone can point to an agile success is that a person with brains and forcefulness beats the system into submission and makes what ever is happening in the "Scrum" work. There is no real structure. Anything so convoluted that you can write an entire book on one portion of the process (Writing the Story) is far too complicated to be real or functional. The reason everyone is called "Developer" is to minimize the real developers. 
|
|
|
|
|
Scrum sold out years ago. 
It used to be Chickens and Pigs....now everyone is a "Pig"...honest.
|
|
|
|
|
Developers,Developers,Developers,Developers,Developers,
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Earl Owens wrote: ... code if written at all can be written by any warm body if we bother to write it at all.
Sure, any coder can write code, but your team will need a Code Developer to develop code. Everyone is a developer, but not all developers are Code Developers.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't freak out.
I have been working in an Agile w/Scrum for about 2.5 years now, and trust me, the Engineers are the coders/developers/engineer and no one else.
When I got my taste of agile "bootcamp" I saw/heard the same crap.
All is good. 
|
|
|
|
|
Earl Owens wrote: Early on we were told that everyone is a developer
A rose by any other name...still pricks you.
The only thing I've learned from the agile community is how agile the muscles responsible for laughing can be.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I am Spartacus!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Earl Owens wrote: So from this we get if everyone is a developer then no one is the developer, and code if written at all can be written by any warm body if we bother to write it at all.
Label doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is what I do during the day and what I get paid to do it.
If they want to throw someone in with little experience I can usually find the time to mentor them which I enjoy doing. And I still get paid to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Earl Owens wrote: Then my supervisor jumps up and says so anyone can be a coder.
Anyone can be a coder, but not everyone can be a manager. That requires a superior level of stupid.
What we got here is a failure to communicate
|
|
|
|
|
If they're coming out with crap like that they don't know anything about Agile. In other news, your supervisor sounds like an idiot. 
But...if you want to learn what Agile is really about, watching conference sessions from Agile on the Beach[^] (a great conference; can heartily recommend it if you're in range) is a pretty good way to start.
Anna ( @annajayne)
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
In the same way as anyone can land a modern passenger plane. There's a couple of people sitting at the front who can probably do it a lot better (and cope a lot better if anything unusual happens) and as a group we therefore decide to let them perform that function.
In civil aviation we call these responsible experts "pilots". In computing we call the responsible experts "developers". In both cases we refer to the cost of not having them as a "plane crash".
|
|
|
|
|
First, realize that Agile is the flavor of the day. And more accurately, is the flavor of the month but could be on its way out soon. Of course people will still jumping on Scrum as it is being replaced by the next great thing.
Second, realize that managers can turn all that is good into all that sucks. The very basis of management in America is based on the premise that you have two classes of people. And they teach the management class that if we can be trusted we should be put into the lower level of their class. If we don't want that, we can't be trusted.
Because of the basic distrust of managers, most places that profess some methodology us some management speak to twist the thing in a heap of dung but remain buzz word compliant. (And Agile is a buzz word today.) There are rumors of some places claiming scrum from daily meetings and ending them by asking about road blocks.
Also, if you ever want some enlightenment, search out the origins of the "waterfall" method of development and see how iterative it really is.
|
|
|
|
|
He must have just watched Ratatouille and made the same analogy.
|
|
|
|
|
Did your agency pay the the firm conducting the Boot Camp? You guys were robbed. Find someone who knows what they're talking about. I applaud your skepticism, sir.
B. Mead
|
|
|
|
|
Why I suddenly need to think about Dilbert?
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard that bus driving ain't too bad!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
