Read on Twitter
I& #39;ve always had a hard time taking the whole "agile" movement seriously given that, in my experience, velocity and agility have SO MUCH MORE to do with the software& #39;s architecture than how work is planned. [1/7]
"Waterfall" exists to hedge against the risk of making a mistake. We know this isn& #39;t very effective though as often the biggest risks are unearthed during the construction process itself. [2/7]
But the capital-A industry pushes the notion that, if we just tighten the loop, then we can move 10X faster. The big assumption they don& #39;t like to talk about, however, is that the software *itself* must be highly malleable for agile practices to move the needle AT ALL. [3/7]
In reality most software is quite brittle and dumping agile practices onto a team working in these conditions pushes them further down the path to total gridlock. [4/7]
It& #39;s yet-another-cargo-cult. Management sees Facebook shipping every day, and think that they can just decide to do that, but don& #39;t understand that AT LEAST a third of Facebook& #39;s engineering efforts are invested in making this possible at scale. [5/7]
Microservices is the engineer& #39;s equivalent of this bolt-on-velocity cargo cult. They read the first 10% of the thinkpiece and come away believing a network hop will forever eliminate coupling across domains, freeing them to move fast. Oh, sweet summer child. [6/7]
