> Which if you try to do - those agile people will kill you for it.

Does this actually happen to you? This is literally the whole point of agile, is to change the plan as you learn more about your work. If you didn't want to change the plan you'd spend a lot of time on up-front planning and do waterfall.

Like, a Gantt chart is more or less explicitly anti-agile. I'm aware of the 'no true Scotsman' thing but we shouldn't buy into people using agile terms for what is really a BDUF-based plan.

> Does this actually happen to you?

Yes and millions of other devs who work in an enterprise 'agile' environment - where a single huge project is/was developed by armies of developers work on a single product with a strict-ish release cadence?

Have you heard about the horror that is SaFe?

I'm not convinced that true agile works or has ever worked on a project that was bigger than a dozen devs.

In practice, it's just another dishonest way of selling consulting hours, infantilizing and disempowering devs, and putting folks who have zero subject matter knowledge in charge by doing these feelgood rituals.

Agile (scrum) in practice at enterprise-scale projects tends to be a combination of feelgood BS +top-down micromanagement (product owners dicking around with task priorities) +traditional project management.

One of the key ways these agile people are incredibly dishonest, is that Agile at the top level is sold to enterprises as a way of keeping the old high-level project management style, with push-only command-structures, and agile people subsequently try to sugarcoat it as it somehow 'empowering' the devs and giving them autonomy, when the truth couldn't be farther from it.