Hacker News Reader

Comment by mkl95 | Hacker News Reader

Scrum cannot fail developers because it's not intended to help them. It's mostly a status report framework based on management pseudoscience.

View on HN

I think scrum is best understood as a push back of waterfall.

Breaking large parts of work into small chunks, where it makes sense, which are testable and negotiable is better than the massive brittle project designs that collapsed under their own weight, with nothing to show for it.

Of course, not everything can be done in small chunks. But a lot can be.

Waterfall is a constructed counter example. Nobody out side of safety sensitive fields like aerospace or the military ever used it and there it is only used because the requirements force it upon the developers. What good can a paradigm do, which basic starting approach is to define itself as counter move to a strawman.

Waterfall was more wide-spread, though perhaps not around you.

Sounded very normalized here: https://youtu.be/hxXmTnb3mFU?list=PLakykuPxo3ch60vi4JeOieW4P...

UK government projects suffered significantly from Waterfall planning, with nothing to show for it at the end.

This lead to the Government Digital Service who cite the failings of Waterfall.

> Using waterfall methods means you may spend 18 months building a service that no longer meets government policy, cannot work with the latest technology and does not meet users' needs.

https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/agile-delivery/agile-gover...

This. I've been programming professionally for decades before Agile-like stuff was around, and I've never seen the process they describe as "waterfall". I think it's entirely made up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com