[DanielBMarkham]

The agile manifesto is a marketing tool used to sell consulting services and books. Those who adhere to it quote it like it was some sort of revelation from on high. A new ten commandments. A great religious insight.

Nope, I'm not a fan, although I agree with the items. Software development does not need manifestos any more than it needs new methodologies. What it needs -- what it has always needed -- is pragmatism. Where the application of the manifesto is pragmatic, it is good. Where it is dogmatic, it is bad.

So I respectfully disagree. I'm just not a platitude kind of guy.

[ZeroGravitas]

How is your comment any less platitudinous than the agile manifesto?

You could call it the Pragmatic Manifesto:

* What software development needs, is what it has always needed: pragmatism!

* Where it is pragmatic, it is good!

* Where it is not-pragmatic (dogmatic), it is bad!

Making a stand for pragmatism, and against dogmatism is basically saying nothing because what you define as pragmatic can be called dogmatic by others and vice versa. It's politician speak, using a vague word with inherent positive connotations to describe your own actions, and one with negative connotations for anything you dislike.

[DanielBMarkham]

LOL -- the new slogan is that there are no slogans!

I see your point, but pragmatism has a lot more depth than simply being an adjective and the opposite of something else. "How to do stuff" is a philosophical exercise (sorry to go long here) and like all philosophical exercises, there are many schools of thought. After looking at all the camps, I'll go with Peirce and Dewey, who, looking at the field, said basically "so what?" "What's it mean to me right now?"

Now maybe the pragmatic school of philosophy has been a con job all along -- if so, hey, the money is good -- but I think there's a bit more to it than simply substituting one slogan for another.

But I loved your comment!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey

[garethm]

If agile means "iterative and incremental projects", it is just a new name for what has long been put forward as a good way to develop software.

In 1996, the Jolt award winning book was Rapid Development by Steve McConnell. Some of the practices that the advocates are evolutionary delivery, designing for change, and timebox development. These are the same practices that appear to be what some here believe are what is called agile.

As far as I know, the term agile really only became associated with software development in 2001 because of the agile manifesto. Because the manifesto itself is the origin and source for the whole agile movement it seems logical to me that it should be taken as the defining basis for what it means to be agile.

To me, agile doesn't mean the same thing as good - therefore I don't feel like I need to some how remake agile in my image. I am reasonably comfortable being closer to being a duct-tape programmer than I am to being an agileista.

Allowing the leaders of the agile movement to define what agile is, doesn't have to mean that you agree with everything, or even anything they are saying or doing. There is a difference between talking about what the definition of something is, and talking about whether you agree with that something.

[chromatic]

I'm all for pragmatism, but a manifesto is a concrete way to tell the guy who just ate a pound of flour and salt that that's no reason to hate chocolate cake.