| > i suspect internally projects followed an iterative process, where designs were refined repeatedly and testing happened early You suspect wrong. It was comprehensive documentation upfront, then development. Iteration did occur because, of course as soon as you actually start development you also start finding issues with your comprehensive documentation, so you deviate from the documentation and need to follow the process to update it... It is difficult to take the blog seriously when the author claims that the Agile manifesto is "near devoid of meaning". The manifesto has a lot of meaning and sound principles stemming from experience, but it only describes principles not a step by step process to follow to implement them (which is where things went all over the place). Whether this 'wisdom' was new or not at the time the manifesto was written is quite irrelevant. "And no one serious doubted the effectiveness of requirements and specifications" (quote from the blog): And Agile does not either. I don't think that AI changes anything to the Agile principles that remain relevvant. AI is just a new tool. You need a "spec" to feed to AI for it to produce code but that is completely orthogonal to Agile. "Agile told us "Working software over comprehensive documentation". Spec-Driven Development is telling us "Comprehensive documentation creates working software"." That misunderstanding what Agile meant, and also repeating the mistake that "comprehensive documentation" upfront is desirable or even achievable. "and put Agile in the dustbin of history where it belongs." At that point I am hoping that this was a satirical blog not to be taken seriously. |