It is not time codes it is timestamp But anyway thanks

Well said!

I agree

For real. They like to take the credit from the work done by devs without actually helping in any sense

He doesn't need courage. He is one THE pragmatic programmers. When he talks, people hear.

It's a cult

@OldPossum IMHO they can easily help someone get a job, or to specialize in some platform. Like a mongo-university dev certification, or an oracle dba one. Certs shoun't be compared to a full university degree. But using them to have a background of some sort for a couple of years until experience is gained, is perfectly valid

@OldPossum This is one of the silliest things I've heard, they all have their value. Sure, a single certification is nothing compared to a single degree... but one takes a month or two to get, and the other takes 4 years. They are very practical for 1) telling others you have skills in a certain tool, or specific area 2) gently push your career in a direction you're trying to move in. I just earned my masters in computer engineering last summer, and I'm keeping up with certs to still appeal to recruiters. About your WinNT 4 sysadmin cert comment.... Anyone here who graduated in 1996, their specific degree is just as useless today as is that cert. You get a degree to get a job, and over time your experience at your job(s) replaces and exceeds the value your degree ever had. The same thing for any certification. It's a small jump to get you where you need to go, it's not going to carry you for the rest of your life.

My philosophy is that every part of your software's surface area exposed to users will be tested. The only choice we have is whether we test it as developers, or leave it to our customers to test. I can promise you that the latter is the worst case scenario in about 18 different ways.

Absolutely agree. Even if you don't care about refactoring and are OK with poorly designed code, you need to keep track of upstreams *at least* because of all the CVEs coming out every day, and you can't upgrade safely without good test coverage.

It's also all the other underlying stuff (OSes, frameworks, etc.) thats constantly changing, i.e. even if your code doesn't evolve the support structures are evolving all the time with updates/security fixes/and so on

Some times that is the rational choice AGILE prioritises SPEED over things like that.

Makes sense in a speculative business environment where the code base will be thrown away anyway. Bad quality, no long-term vision, a lot of focus on badly implemented features

It's because the time pressure is very common and code quality usually sacrificed in favor of deadlines.

Exactly. Good point 👍

Well done that man!

Thank you.

One of the things I liked about the last place I worked at was that it was a blended process, yeah we had cards to be done (tasks.) Two week releease windows, etc.. But the process was simple, we'd look at the list at the beginning of the period, pick what we each wanted to work on and guess how long it would take. Each day we just said how we where progressing, no pushback, etc, just say the truth. If you finished and it was tested and published you moved onto another card of your choice in the list. You repeated this until as many features/bug fixes as possible where ready for the next release. The best part was you had no-one screaming down you neck, you wrote it how you wanted to, there where design standards to follow but the important implementation side was your creativity. That company was MSX International.

It's difficult to clean up that much shit.

@Inareth I found little point of Agile so far. Sure I get tickets with bugs to fix, but where's the novelty in that?

@Inareth Why are you assuming nobody else watched the video?

I tried to convince my managers and co-workers for the past 2 years that Agile will destroy our system at work but no one listens. I'm just the "crazy" analyst.

@Inareth You're getting something out of my comment that I never put into it.

I have confidently turned around projects using Agile and Scrum. I ask a few questions to myself: 1: Can everyone in my team articulate an overall picture of the new business dynamics?-A well fantasized and elaborate mental image of how the new business will be done by different roles and that too in diverse situations? Does my team know it, think about it, creatively embrace it, passionately define it and only then put it in the sprints? Do we plan only these types of stories and sprints? Agile is NOT a magic tool, it is how we use it. (Not to just develop a feature- NOT to merely improve a process - NOT to demo a cool functionality). 2: Do we have a well developed test scenario for every story ? (not automated but a test that captures comprehensive business dynamics & IT management. e.g. just a "Sign On" feature means different thing for a VP logging in from the airport VS. a docking supervisor in bitter cold of morning shift or a sales employee "logging in" from a client site. For IT dev team - a DBA thinks of "Sign On" differently than a Security or a mobile app developer or API programmer or a Cloud performance guy. A comprehensive tribal knowledge about each other's contributions can be achieved only thru daily cross teaching called stand ups. NOT any rambling about what I didn't do. There are several such energetic impulses we need to bring in the team- That's Agile for me. Connect with me to turn around your Agile teams instead of complaining. tonydesai10@gmail.com

that's the point

Mustapha, yes. But keep in mind: You change the context, and with that context comes new problems based upon that context. Similarly, you change the methodology, and you end up back where you started. We are no more productive today with agile/scrum/xp than before. We're just finding new ways of expressing the same old thing. And perhaps there never was any problem to solve in the first place.

Hes sayng that the whole idea was misunderstood from the begining and hes actualy giving a new definition, simplifiying it to the fact that being Agile means to adapt to changes, like the two wheel robot that maintains equilibrium constantly reacting to the forces that afects it on every moment.

christian galicia, sure ok, but "adapting to changes" didn't suddenly show up with agile. It's not as if the lone wolf way of programming in the 80's had no way of adapting. Being able to adapt is simply a function of hiring the right people, just as it's always been. Seriously, every few years coming up with "hey this way of thinking is new" is not new. All the same development problems from the dawn of time are there, they're just given new names. And by the way, "extreme programming" is a perfect example of this.

I understand your point, however don't completely agree with you. I dont think that is 'simply a function of hiring the right people'. Adapting its more than that, its a matter of doing what needs to be done in every moment. Adapting its about constantly monitoring the state of a project. You cant reduce that to Hiring the right people. On any case i would ask you, what does that right people the you hire do to adapt? What arouse with Agile, was the realization that it was not a matter of having fixed plans, but a matter of being flexible enough to change the plans on the way in order to adapt to every moment until the project is properly landed at the right moment with the right specs. Yes All the same development problems from the dawn of time are there, however the solution to those problems have evolved in new methodologies.

this is a question that assumes that the whole industry have watched this conference since

It's 2022 and I ask you what are you doing to stop this madness

Wow, very edgy

@@TheHolym4n no, that sounds expensive

@@JoeGilson1 this was the weirdest part of working on many "agile" teams over the past 10 years... just about any stupid trivial thing that could obviously be done in 15min or less, would become "2 sprints of work" involving 5 people... but of course at a software consulting company, that's a feature not a bug lol

uhm... agile excludes project managers altogether

@@miks8 not in the real world

Peppermint They just changed the name to be scrum master, same kind of thing

@@PplsChampion thats why Im very keen on distributing certain tasks, code review oke, but he can work on a and she can work on b. We (team/stakeholders) all know a and b are the most important, lets just do it. Not to much time breaking things down to far to be able (or pretending) to predict when and when it will be delivered. Own your shit, find a way of working that the team likes, but make sure you keep delivering to your stakeholders. Simple as that.

Best practice... we're all looking for the cheat codes to making implementation of complex systems easier. The real secret sauce is practice implementing complex systems. Try explaining that to the business analysts during your multi-sprint planning sessions.

Agree, but I still think Uncle Bob is in a different league

BG J

@@Fool1929 Isn't dead an adjective?

No, I'm afraid it's a lot more than that.

Hexagonaal To him it is. He's voiced so strongly against over complicating agile. That's the gist anyway of his talk.

The complexity lies in your own implementation. The devil is in the detail. Each team is different and trying to follow a set of rules laid out by a book is dangerous.

FableBlaze There is no so call "*standard* textbook rules" of Agile. If there were, this talk wouldn't have been necessary, and wouldn't have happened in the first place.

More isn't necessarily more complex, in this case more subtle - many people understand feedback loops in one compartment of their minds, and then fail to apply them to control problems they understand on a lower plane in another compartment in their mind. This point can take a few years to pound into someone's head, I've been trying for years and I still constantly stumble =)

Agile does some things well, and other things abysmally. What it fails at is *design* and *user* satisfaction. What it succeeds in is creating a whole-team development culture. Its chief sins are (a) the substitution of "use cases" for a formal design [and this one is fatal over the long term], (b) the permission to write development "speed bumps" off as "technical debt" [that sometimes never gets resolved], and (c) continuous integration. _"Now wait,"_ you ask, _"how can CI be bad?"_ It's bad because, if there are multiple versions available, all of those multiple versions will be run by the user population, and troubleshooting those will be difficult. Of course, the advice is "upgrade to the most current", but that's kind of like a help desk that says "reboot Windows" whenever you have a problem -- not satisfactory in a large number of cases. Managers and investors love Agile: the product goes out the door generally on time and under budget. But *what's going out the door?* Quality? Something you'd be proud to have wear your brand? I think generally not. The adoption of Agile cannot be a 100% policy; it fails badly for large projects. Sadly, small projects do not represent a majority of the software available in the market today. The Agile Manifesto has to be the most violated set of guidelines on the planet. What I'm seeing in the commercial arena is that micromanagement is being mixed with "digital transformation" in the name of Agile, yielding a brand new, unheard of, and in many cases unexplainable way of reporting on your work status, and yes, even "enhancing" the toolset a developer uses to give management "dashboards" on where they think any project is. *This is not the way developers work, nor the way they want to work.* Agree with you, @musmanakram -- Agile is not beneficial. I'm sorry, software isn't cheap unless you write it yourself ... and even then, it still takes time, cash, knowledge, and effort.

@@8a41jt Great points. As I've watched the firm I work for transition (painfully) from waterfall to Agile over the past several years I've noticed that there probably isn't a single person in the firm that truly understands what it is and entails, and probably not any two people in the firm that could give you the same definition for it. It's vastly misunderstood among groups of people that hear the term and know it's something that management wants them to do, but they don't really have any idea on how to do it. It's a complete and utter mess when you have an organization full of people that hear buzzwords if only to repeat them whilst never researching the actual meanings of any new terms (Agile is old of course, but still), and there is no proper training given to GET people all on the same page and understanding what it means (nor any Agile coaches or experienced scrum masters brought in from the outside). Absolute chaos. Aside from all of that, even if everyone at the firm DID truly get it and were all on the same page, it would still suffer from the fallacies you mentioned. It reminds me of something one of my teachers said before about communism. "It looks great on paper but doesn't actually work that well in real life." I feel the exact same way about Agile. Some people can sell the sizzle of it, sure, but I have yet to see ANY team where I work utilize it effectively to achieve a desired result - not once. I think much like communism (or any methodology really), humans are the problem. A group of people will get together and jack something up real good much more often than they will cooperate efficiently to get the goal accomplished. Now for the worst part...I've seen where people use the general confusion around Agile to basically shirk out of doing their jobs. For an Agile team to work, EVERYONE needs to be on point and cooperating fully. I was on a team where the business guy refused to give any details regarding User Stories. The stories would basically be one liners with no Acceptance Criteria. The team kept asking him for more details because literally, the ask was never clear. He kept harping on about how Agile means "the team" needs to get together and come up with the AC's. That's great, but "the team" still needs enough details to even get off the ground at all. He basically just didn't want to do his job and he fought voraciously to not have to write Acceptance Criteria. Then on the same team we had a tester that would sandbag all sprint leaving tons of work undone on the last day and then call in sick on that day. THIS guy said the word "team" more than anyone, when in fact, HE was the one not being a team player. If you couple all of that mess with the fact that to truly deliver with the rapidity that Agile has made management think deployments should happen, automated testing must be top notch - and it never is. Projects are started for existing applications for which there is little to no automated testing yet in place, dev runs as fast as they can to deliver by the right dates, testing falls by the wayside, and when the project is "done", it goes out the door with HORRID quality. The pace is just too fast for most groups of humans to keep up with when it comes to updating legacy applications or creating new apps altogether. That project I was on with the lame testers and business dude....the entire thing failed, was scrapped, and $12M went down the drain. Why? Because Agile isn't that great to begin with, and humans turned it into an absolute circus.

Talk too much that is why need agile

The reason is that PMs are running "Agile" now. It was originally created by technical guys. Now it is project management. Thats why the Software Craftsmenship Guys came into existance. If you actually do the XP practises very well than the "project management" parts of the agile world (like scrum) can help you get more done. But if you don't do the basics right, you just produce "double the shit in half the time".

It's used on Microsoft windows teams, which isn't a small project. Again as the presentation also said, you have to make the process fit for your particular situation. Next to that, you have to deal with the competencies of your staff (which is your particular situation again) that needs to execute. These statements are all too easy without actually looking at the details

Said in a Conference held in Amsterdam.

@@charalamboskyriakou840 kakakaka i though exactly this

you're thinking about a noun again

I swear we spend more time estimating projects than we do actually implementing them; that coupled with an open office design minimizes productivity

That's not agile killing creativity, that's management killing creativity. Which I think is probably in their employment contracts.

Party on, dude

lol well played

That's all I got out of this. Jesus... being a collection of letters doesn't kill anything. This is just a narrow minded person being pedantic about the meaning attached to an existing word. We do this all the time. There's nothing fluffy or vapor about anything "cloud" but that doesn't make it dead; and it's not alive because it's a noun.

Nope, it's not, but "agile programming" is a noun phrase. Now, whether *anything* that is signified by a noun phrase can have the property of life or death is another question entirely. I am with you though... I hate this linguistic tongue-fuckery.

Better: Agile or not agile.But again not all animals are created agile and doesn't necessarily need to be

You thought a job interview was the perfect time to argue semantics on Agile/SCRUM/Waterfall methodology, enough to the point that you were marched out of a handful of them? That makes no sense.

Same here. I was told that I will not be a cultural fit

machivellisucs excellent reference, thank you!

Any news on the video? :-)

David Connelly: my thoughts exactly - check out the following for a similar humorous take on the situation: bit.ly/tisodeft

Would "flexible" be acceptable? How about "adaptive"? The word is not the problem...the people are.

I agree. I remember a discussion on "good money" that got co-opted by Ron Paul. The claim of the article was that money should be named after its underlying metal weight; this would avoid people forgetting that the money is (or was) tied to metal. I responded at the time and pointed out the British "pound". It doesn't matter what name you use for something, eventually it will become a thing of its own; completely divorced from its original word usage. (I'm sure there is some lesson from the old field of "semantics" in there)

Take my virtual hug, my brother. I wish that you heal from your (deep) wounds quickly and fully.

Unless you stand up on the big rock and look out over a desert. You think you are heading toward an oasis. So you spend a lot of time heading in that direction. Only after the long journey do you realize you are heading toward a mirage. If you get on a rock more frequently, you can head off disaster quicker.

Was it ever really alive?

LOL. No, it never was. Please see my comment at the top.

Agile was not agile enough, so it got killed by a more agile & extreme attacker.

Can we get a memo on that to the clueless project and hiring managers I need to go through to get a job in the software industry?

In my company we are working with scrum. What do you mean agile is dead. OK agile was after waterfall. What is after agile?

We're many

Is that 2 rules? How many more?

Fjeidodlfoepapdkeiw9x

at 36:20!

and 36:45 again, it just never quits.

+cannotwest you gave me the best laughter of the year. Anyhow, I love the presentation especially the bit about telling others how to live is not cool.

Agile is Dead but Cactus is Alive!

Ha ha - yes - as soon as I noticed it I thought it looked kind of metaphoric - I like what he is saying though - AND - is walking around in his socks - which is cool