Author here.

So one of the main points in this massive, 700 word Treatise (which I do hope you will find the time to read) was that nothing Agile practitioners slapped their label onto was actually novel.

Why re-invent agile, when agile itself was just a reinvention by "the kids" (your words, not mine) of things people in the 1970s already knew?

One might as well go straight to the 1970s directly.

▲

mnsc 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah I read it and didn't get the point. So agile is dead? And we are now doing waterfall due to Ai needing unambiguous specifications? But also agile was nothing new because they knew that waterfall didn't work in the 70s. But now it works? Or are we still doing iterative development but the term agile is banned as unoriginal?

	▲	LAC-Tech a day ago \| parent [-]
		I am not Kent Beck; I don't have all the answers. All AI has shown us is that we should probably write specs before we code. That was true before AI, but LLMs have just shone a light on this, and it will remain true if agentic coding falls out of fashion again. Never once did I advocate waterfall... Read the Royce paper, seriously. It's short, he's a much better writer than I am, and if nothing else it's a fascinating looking at the old state of the art.