[vbtemp]

> Back in the '90s, "Object-Oriented" got redefined in popular imagination to "good". If your language or system was good, it was then by definition object-oriented. Anything good had therefore to be called OO. Saying something was not actually OO (e.g. this) was taken to mean it was not good, generating spurious conflict.

Excellent point, and I think in our contemporary age something similar is happening with "Agile". It has ceased to become a project management technique useful for a certain class of products. It has instead become redefined to mean "good" - for example, in popular imagination, if a team is not "Agile" then they are somehow backwards or out-of-the-loop. Now teams, products, and situations where Agile is not appropriate are finding themselves having it forced upon them, or spinning what they do as agile.

[ctrlp]

Agile has meant 'bad' for years now ever since Agile processes were formalized and adopted by big orgs. At least that's how I've thought of it: 'Agile' means the worst of all worlds. Run if you can.

[vbtemp]

Well it's become the exact corporate management hell that the original manifesto authors sought to fight back against. I personally avoid joining teams or companies that drank the kool-aid, and additionally find agile to be a particularly counter-productive way to deliver value to customers quickly. About 7 years or so ago I had the first inkling things were wrong when "Agile Coaches" appeared who were not developers.

It does, at least, facilitate micro management and burnout.

[ByteJockey]

The rule of thumb I've noticed.

If they use "agile" as a noun, they generally have no idea what they're talking about and you should be careful.