This post by Dorian Taylor <https://doriantaylor.com/agile-as-trauma> makes a few connections I found interesting:
1. Framing the agile movement as a response to trauma — I suspect many other things in our industry could be framed that way?
2. Composition naturally leads to iterative process — not sure if that “naturally” there is justified, but certainly an observation to ponder.
3. How collaboration is such an important part of the agile approach although “programming itself is a quasi-solipsistic activity. A programmer requires, strictly speaking, no more collaboration than does a novelist or painter.”
4. “[T]he presence of a feature can only indicate to a user if a goal is possible, behaviour will determine how painful it will be to achieve it.” and “[Behavior] blurs the line between “fixing bugs” and “building features”, and coalesces the two into a unitary process of “sculpting behaviour”.
1. “Even in a world after programmers, there will still be the work of figuring out—albeit no longer in code—just what you want to tell the computer to do for you—how you want it to behave. There are still a lot of decisions to make aside from what framework you write it in, or whether you use NoSQL, or how you lay out the source tree. If you eliminate the decisions that involve getting the artifact to work at all, the remaining decisions are going to involve whether it works better one way than another. Most of these decisions are going to be the result of trial and error, and a sizable chunk of those are going to involve feedback from users.”
And he touched a few other things we talked about here before.
🌶️ 2
❤️ 4
d
Dan Cook
04/20/2020, 3:12 AM
I really like the meme that it looks to ("Not MVP, but Earliest Testable/Usable/Lovable"), even though the argument is against it:
And this:
"Software is unprecedented in its low cost of development—when compared to hardware. Code, however, is arguably the most expensive medium for expressing ideas"
Dan Cook
04/20/2020, 4:32 AM
It's amazing to keep realizing how much of "reality" (in software, society, politics, ..., etc.) is just not upon "stories" (i.e. the ways things are and how they came to be this way) that a culture buys into. (Read a book called "Ishmael" for more on that).
We all know how software was doing this bad waterfall thing, and now it's doing this good Agile thing, and everybody wants to be part of that story and be "Agile", whatever that really means.
(Alan Kay says something about people seeing the past as "like the present, but cruder", and how limiting that view is)
Similar things can be said about the perceptions of OOP, "structured programming", and probably most other paradigms in software (regarding the how things "started bad" and now we do this new good thing -- but that's just a story, and not quite accurate; reality is much more complicated). This video does a good job digging this kind of stuff up:
https://youtu.be/eEBOvqMfPoI▾
k
Konrad Hinsen
04/20/2020, 9:40 AM
The first sentence of the post is the most important in my opinion: it's not about software, but about management. I wish people would stop writing about "software". That's a term just about as specific as "prose". You don't see people pontifying about how to write prose. Everybody understands that writing a novel, writing a love letter, and writing technical documentation are very different things, even though all are prose.
Agile is about developing tools for rapidly changing or incompletely understood requirements. If you are working on the perfect contribution to the Obfuscated C Code Contest, then Agile is the last thing you want. Subsuming both problems under "software development" is not helpful.