Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Agile vs. waterfall ?!
36 views
Skip to first unread message
LudovicoVan
Nov 10, 2012, 10:38:34 AM11/10/12
to
[This post in the Software Craftsmanship Google Group (*) has cost me being
banned from the group: I am reposting it here, to denounce how compromised
is the situation and to keep the discussion open.]
Agile vs. waterfall is another one we should clearly stand against: it's
just the marketing of a false dichotomy, but it is as wrong and a damage as
it can be because it promotes massive misconceptions not only about the
software process but about the very state of the art.
Rather than setting up primary schools on the art of tying shoelaces, we'd
better focus on getting the basics straight.
-LV
(*)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/software_craftsmanship/B4P0b93d8hU/g44aPocZSAkJ>
banned from the group: I am reposting it here, to denounce how compromised
is the situation and to keep the discussion open.]
Agile vs. waterfall is another one we should clearly stand against: it's
just the marketing of a false dichotomy, but it is as wrong and a damage as
it can be because it promotes massive misconceptions not only about the
software process but about the very state of the art.
Rather than setting up primary schools on the art of tying shoelaces, we'd
better focus on getting the basics straight.
-LV
(*)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/software_craftsmanship/B4P0b93d8hU/g44aPocZSAkJ>
LudovicoVan
Nov 11, 2012, 12:56:32 AM11/11/12
to
"LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote in message
news:k7lse6$v05$1...@dont-email.me...
> Agile vs. waterfall is another one we should clearly stand against
Of course, that is just the tip of an iceberg. Here is another one, by the
very moderator of the SC:
<http://blog.8thlight.com/doug-bradbury/2012/10/30/experience-gap.html>
<< It turns out that experience can actually be a poor indicator of future
success. It's possible that a programmer has "experienced" the same year for
15 years running. Software tools and processes move rapidly. A programmer
could still be using the same tools and techniques he or she used in the
first year on the job. I've been in places like this and watched the same
developer make the same mistakes and excuses year after year. It is entirely
possible in some companies to hold a job as a programmer and simply stop
learning. >>
But, of course, mistaking an an experienced programmer for a poor programme,
just as mistaking solid software engineering for dumb waterfall, is not a
mistake that happens by pure chance:
<< Our company was founded on this idea of apprenticeship. >>
I had no doubt, Doug! Just please take your own advice.
This horror picture show to be continued...
-LV
news:k7lse6$v05$1...@dont-email.me...
> Agile vs. waterfall is another one we should clearly stand against
very moderator of the SC:
<http://blog.8thlight.com/doug-bradbury/2012/10/30/experience-gap.html>
<< It turns out that experience can actually be a poor indicator of future
success. It's possible that a programmer has "experienced" the same year for
15 years running. Software tools and processes move rapidly. A programmer
could still be using the same tools and techniques he or she used in the
first year on the job. I've been in places like this and watched the same
developer make the same mistakes and excuses year after year. It is entirely
possible in some companies to hold a job as a programmer and simply stop
learning. >>
But, of course, mistaking an an experienced programmer for a poor programme,
just as mistaking solid software engineering for dumb waterfall, is not a
mistake that happens by pure chance:
<< Our company was founded on this idea of apprenticeship. >>
I had no doubt, Doug! Just please take your own advice.
This horror picture show to be continued...
-LV
LudovicoVan
Nov 11, 2012, 1:12:16 AM11/11/12
to
> Agile vs. waterfall is another one we should clearly stand against
And here is another one, by Ron Jeffreys in that very same thread, of course
after I had already been banned and he knew it (the scammers twitter each
other, as they are in fact a gang under all respects):
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/software_craftsmanship/B4P0b93d8hU/g44aPocZSAkJ>
<< I originally wrote this in response to LV's notion that agility is
orthogonal to process model, because it isn't. >>
Of course it is, Ron: agility is essentially about low formality, and one
can be agile that one is doing iterative, incremental, spiral, prototypal,
etc., and even waterfall, which remains a sensible way to go for very small
projects.
<< The waterfall model as practiced today (not as originally defined) is
phase based, with a project consisting of separate phases like analysis,
then design, then coding, and then testing. These phases are expected to be
gone through just once. >>
In fact, that *is* how it was originally defined and how it still is!
<< Agile methods, on the other hand, are iterative and incremental. >>
So, Ron, you don't even know what agility is about, do you? Otherwise you
are simply lying. Again, take note, for your benefit: agility is
essentially about low formality, and one can be agile that one is doing
iterative, incremental, spiral, prototypal, etc., and even waterfall, which
remains a sensible way to go for very small projects.
To be charitable, you guys are just reinventing the wheel, and reinventing
it all wrong: for your own personal gain and to the misery of the whole
professional category and market place.
-LV
LudovicoVan
Nov 11, 2012, 1:14:36 AM11/11/12
to
> Agile vs. waterfall is another one we should clearly stand against
And here is Todd Sodano: "Developing Software Leaders (TM)"!
No comment...
-LV
LudovicoVan
Nov 13, 2012, 5:25:17 AM11/13/12
to
Since I am in fact not allowed to post in the SC Google Group, here is my
reply to:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/software_craftsmanship/B4P0b93d8hU/rLVDN4SnWikJ>
On Monday, 12 November 2012 16:54:10 UTC, Curtis Cooley wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:15 AM, LudovicoVan <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> > On Friday, 9 November 2012 13:07:43 UTC, Ron Jeffries wrote:
<snipped>
> > > What do you know, Ludovico, and how do you know it?
>
> > I know that you are just dodging the question, Ron, and just trying the
> > usual personal attack instead.
>
> Hmm, interesting. I'm not seeing that, and I've never seen Ron take that
> approach. I believe he's trying to use Socratic questioning to engage in
> meaningful conversation.
He has simply attacked me on a personal level, just asking for a pedigree or
similar instead of replying to the merit of the point. This is a typically
dishonest approach and has nothing to do with "Socratic questioning", it is
in fact quite the opposite of it.
> > Anyway, as just a starting hint to the not so skilled, agility is
> > *orthogonal* to the software process models, so that agility vs.
> > waterfall is plain pure nonsense. Just to begin with.
>
> If you are saying the skills required to be agile are orthogonal to
> software process models, I might agree.
No, it is not a matter of "skills" (again and again this primality of the
pushing of levers), it is a matter of concepts and their proper definitions.
> Those same skills apply across processes. I do think Agile describes a set
> of processes which Waterfall is not a member, so Agile vs Waterfall seems
> to make sense to me.
Again: agility is about low formality ("documentation barely good enough" in
Ambler's simplification), it just has *nothing* to do with process models:
namely, you can be agile that you are doing iterative, incremental, spiral,
prototypical, and even plain waterfall, which remains the natural way to go
for quick small projects.
> I'm also confused about what it means for a software craftsmanship group
> to be against Agile vs Waterfall.
It just means that we should stand up against the hype and the speculation,
and rather promote true professionalism and understanding.
-LV
reply to:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/software_craftsmanship/B4P0b93d8hU/rLVDN4SnWikJ>
On Monday, 12 November 2012 16:54:10 UTC, Curtis Cooley wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:15 AM, LudovicoVan <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> > On Friday, 9 November 2012 13:07:43 UTC, Ron Jeffries wrote:
<snipped>
> > > What do you know, Ludovico, and how do you know it?
>
> > I know that you are just dodging the question, Ron, and just trying the
> > usual personal attack instead.
>
> Hmm, interesting. I'm not seeing that, and I've never seen Ron take that
> approach. I believe he's trying to use Socratic questioning to engage in
> meaningful conversation.
He has simply attacked me on a personal level, just asking for a pedigree or
similar instead of replying to the merit of the point. This is a typically
dishonest approach and has nothing to do with "Socratic questioning", it is
in fact quite the opposite of it.
> > Anyway, as just a starting hint to the not so skilled, agility is
> > *orthogonal* to the software process models, so that agility vs.
> > waterfall is plain pure nonsense. Just to begin with.
>
> If you are saying the skills required to be agile are orthogonal to
> software process models, I might agree.
No, it is not a matter of "skills" (again and again this primality of the
pushing of levers), it is a matter of concepts and their proper definitions.
> Those same skills apply across processes. I do think Agile describes a set
> of processes which Waterfall is not a member, so Agile vs Waterfall seems
> to make sense to me.
Again: agility is about low formality ("documentation barely good enough" in
Ambler's simplification), it just has *nothing* to do with process models:
namely, you can be agile that you are doing iterative, incremental, spiral,
prototypical, and even plain waterfall, which remains the natural way to go
for quick small projects.
> I'm also confused about what it means for a software craftsmanship group
> to be against Agile vs Waterfall.
It just means that we should stand up against the hype and the speculation,
and rather promote true professionalism and understanding.
-LV
0 new messages