The waterfall which makes Agile pundits go blind

re: The waterfall which makes Agile pundits go blind

robertwharvey — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:53:09 GMT

I have noticed of late that when I Google for a solution to a programming problem, I see many examples of "experts" who give a one-line solution to a problem posed by some script-kiddie, and then are miffed when the person does not understand their one-line solution or how to apply it. Worse, the script-kiddie does not even know how to pose the question correctly in the first place (Here's my code, tell me why it doesn't work).

In the "old days" you could count on programmers doing the work to make themselves knowledgeable enough to ask productive questions. Today, everyone thinks they're a programmer.

re: The waterfall which makes Agile pundits go blind

Granville Barnett — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:04:55 GMT

I know I am late to this but incidentally a while ago I went onto the ALT.NET list to see what the hype was about and I saw you had contributed to a post on comments and I was shocked by the comments say that code comments were bad.

While I agree to a certain extent that code should be self descriptive in some scenarios this is just not possible and thus a comment from the programmer should be enforced as the code will be read many times.

I think I read another thread (again you were somewhere in there) which confirmed my worries and that was the slandering of CS theory and its practice or rahter how little of what people said had proof in the form of papers etc.

Those threads put me off the list.

The ALT.NET list read like whoever shouted the most won sort of thing - not for me.

re: The waterfall which makes Agile pundits go blind

D. P. Bullington — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:08:04 GMT

Amen brother.

re: The waterfall which makes Agile pundits go blind

Jeff Barnes — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:23:07 GMT

Frans,

I agree with you.

Initially, I thought ALT.NET was a great idea. It was finally being publicized to use the tool/technology that is most appropriate for a given problem, which is something that I have always believed. Unfortunately, the entire "movement" has seemingly regressed into a religious state of mind that is filled with zealots who antagonize anyone with an opposing perspective. Spirited technical debates are a fundamental part of gaining insight into different ideas, but who wants/has time to try reasoning with close-minded individuals that refuse to carry on a rational conversation? I sure don’t…that’s why I unsubscribed from the list.

re: The waterfall which makes Agile pundits go blind

Robz — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:07:56 GMT

Unfortunately there may always be people who are close minded to things and will never see another way, kind of like being a fanatic. Even worse when there is actual proof and someone is still blind to it.

There is almost always more than one way to do something. And there is almost aways more than one way to do something right.

I don't know why, but I have a horrible reaction to people who are close minded - I want to punch them in the face. It won't solve anything, but it makes me feel better. And sometimes that's good enough...

re: The waterfall which makes Agile pundits go blind

Peter Ritchie — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:50:12 GMT

Your comments about being "accepted" are only reinforced by the fact that Scott Bellware posted "There are circumstances where another style of methodology like waterfall might be a more appropriate to a project" well before you mentioning "waterfall". No one started getting on his case and no one called him a waterfall monger.

re: The waterfall which makes Agile pundits go blind

Colin Jack — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:02:43 GMT

Its early in the morning but I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I still think its a pity you are leaving.

I personally just avoid the like of the comment thread, too long and too much bickering. As soon as dogma enters it gets messy too.

Can I also say that you are as guilty as any of us for the misunderstandings. We all read forum entries and interpret them incorrectly from time to time, but thats life.

re: The waterfall which makes Agile pundits go blind

John Rayner — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:35:32 GMT

> Alt.Net: a movement which wants to use a different set of

> techniques/patterns/tools/practises than Microsoft prescribes to its customers via its product catalog

Yeah. I agree. And I don't think that this is a bad thing. I like to reason things out from first principles and I don't like someone else (i.e. Microsoft) telling me how it should be. Sometimes I'll arrive at the same answer, but at least I'm applying some critical thought.

Sorry to see you leave the mailing list - I thought you often provided a great counterpoint to some of the groupthink. FWIW I thought you got overly flamed for it too.

Cheers,

John

re: The waterfall which makes Agile pundits go blind

Grant — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:24:18 GMT

The core issue isn't really Waterfall or Agile, it's that there's no open-minded discourse. Too much religion disguised as pragmatism. I can find out what I need to about any SDLC approach read-only, I just don't need to see all the bitch-fighting that happens on the margins.

re: The waterfall which makes Agile pundits go blind

Steve Wright — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:22:25 GMT

Does it really matter what method you use to program if the customer likes the end result?