Comment by stefanve | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stefanve | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Again the manifesto doesn't state that you should not spec. Nor did I make the claim that before agile nobody talked to each other

Sadly I have seen work packages delivered to software teams without any context just specs. Sadly I have worked and seen projects that went down the documentation rabbit hole and spend years trying to come up with the ideal spec before any thing has been build. (and I'm not even that old). You would see that kind of stuff with in government but also large enterprise and even at mid sized companies. And it still exists today

I also have seen successful waterfall projects and I have seen failed agile projects (although those tent to fail faster and thus less costly)

The agile way is not the only way, there are instances that other ways of working might be better.

But for me personally the best work experiences where all companies that worked agile or where transitioning to agile. I worked this way (and helped in the transition) at companies ranging from scale ups to big enterprise.

A many a time I have had these same discussions with people at the beginning of a transition. Mostly people that never worked this way or had a bad experience.

Yes, if a huge organisation tries to manage a huge software project top-down in waterfall fashion, it’s easy to imagine how things might not end well. I’m not sure anyone here is advocating that, though; certainly I am not.

My original comment on the Agile Manifesto, which seems to have attracted most of the responses I’ve read here today, was only intended to make the point that without knowing what you’re trying to build, you have no way to define whether or not you have succeeded. I therefore don’t think it makes much sense to talk about valuing working software over comprehensive documentation in general terms as the Manifesto does. You can only know your software is working to the extent that you know how it’s supposed to work in the first place.

> My original comment on the Agile Manifesto, which seems to have attracted most of the responses I’ve read here today, was only intended to make the point that without knowing what you’re trying to build, you have no way to define whether or not you have succeeded. I therefore don’t think it makes much sense to talk about valuing working software over comprehensive documentation in general terms as the Manifesto does. You can only know your software is working to the extent that you know how it’s supposed to work in the first place.

The Manifesto is pretty explicit that “over” in the “over” statements means exactly what it says, and isn't a misspelling of “instead of”; the Manifesto very much does not claim that there isn't some degree of documentation that serves an essential role in defining and achieving correctly-functioning software and that that isn't instrumentally important.

I do wish, though, that rather than “over” statements with an explanation that “over” means “over” and not something else the manifesto had used something like “is/are served by” in place of “over” (with some light editing of the items on the sides to fit that structure):

  Individuals and interactions *are served by* processes and tools.

  Working software *is served by* appropriate documentation.

  Customer collaboration *is served by* contract structure.

  Ability to respond to change *is served by* planning.

They are about subordination, not exclusion, of the things on the right in favor of those on the left.

FWIW, I like your characterisation better. Saying that you value something as a means to achieve something else that you also value makes logical sense.

You're where implying that by stating that is is a straw men argument and that only ages ago those environments excited.

like I said in the beginning of the discussing the manifesto reverenced to those type of environments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com