reading royce made it apparent the agile movement was, in part, a response to a strawman
i have no doubt that places were practicing waterfall in the large. people running businesses, both vendor and client, want 'predictable' estimates up front, with a single timeframe, and single quote
but i suspect internally projects followed an iterative process, where designs were refined repeatedly and testing happened early. because you had to
unfortunately, those projects were still judged by a waterfall yardstick, with inflating timescales and bills, giving something for agile to attack
and on first blush, agile, the manifesto, sounds reasonable enough
but, after 30-40 years of practice to reflect upon, agile:
- has some good parts that were already well documented, i.e royce and brooks
- some radical parts of dubious general applicability and benefit
- just enough ambiguity that we have since been arguing what true agile really is
and this is what prevents it from ever really working or being the basis to solidify an engineering field around
it helped us get some of the way there but it won't help us get further and it's time to let it die
One of the quotes seems to mention to that, where he says he digests a lot of papers to add a small part to TAoCP, since his aim is to write books that cover a the breadth of computer science (which necessarily cannot be as deep as these papers go).
I meant with regards to ACOs. The public have no idea what they are. They sound public.
Stephen Hawking was fighting the government on this in court when he died. I'm guessing you know that.
As for the past 8 years, it's obvious what the Tories are trying to do. Privatisation is the 'perfect solution' when public approval for the NHS hits the floor.
No other way for them to do it. Political suicide. Bastards.
i have no doubt that places were practicing waterfall in the large. people running businesses, both vendor and client, want 'predictable' estimates up front, with a single timeframe, and single quote
but i suspect internally projects followed an iterative process, where designs were refined repeatedly and testing happened early. because you had to
unfortunately, those projects were still judged by a waterfall yardstick, with inflating timescales and bills, giving something for agile to attack
and on first blush, agile, the manifesto, sounds reasonable enough
but, after 30-40 years of practice to reflect upon, agile:
- has some good parts that were already well documented, i.e royce and brooks
- some radical parts of dubious general applicability and benefit
- just enough ambiguity that we have since been arguing what true agile really is
and this is what prevents it from ever really working or being the basis to solidify an engineering field around
it helped us get some of the way there but it won't help us get further and it's time to let it die