Agile isn't that bad. People just believe they are more productive if they are "heads down" and not held accountable for what they write/do.
Functional programming isn't that great and doesn't solve all of the world's problems; it just pushes the issues with state to other parts of your design, and doesn't scale well in deeply nested solutions.
IDEs with proper code support (i.e. automatic structure analysis, autocomplete, etc.) are one of the best ways to deal with a large codebase that needs refactoring. Doing widescale refactors without one is asking for trouble. If you believe you don't need it, either your codebase is just that small (which is fine) or playing with fire.
Much of the advice out there on architecture and tooling isn't properly contextualized on the codebase, market, and team situation. If you believe you have the One True Architecture Solution, you are naive. (Ex. Microservices, large complex code pipelines, monorepos, etc.) Be especially wary of anything from FAANG engineering blogs unless you are also in another letter of FAANG.
There. Got it out of my system. Have fun dissecting it.
The biggest problem with Agile is bad managers fucking it up. But bad managers will fuck things up no matter which way you do things.
But they're going to want to somehow see progress, and they'll leave you alone if they see some cards moving on a board. Even if they have no idea what the cards mean.
Whatever, it's better than having to do status update meetings.
I can't speak for your managers, but my past managers didn't need Agile to f things up. They can do that with anything!
Yeah that was my point. Agile with shitty managers sucks. But any way of doing things with shitty managers sucks.
Oh boy, here we go (inhales):
Agile isn't that bad. People just believe they are more productive if they are "heads down" and not held accountable for what they write/do.
Functional programming isn't that great and doesn't solve all of the world's problems; it just pushes the issues with state to other parts of your design, and doesn't scale well in deeply nested solutions.
IDEs with proper code support (i.e. automatic structure analysis, autocomplete, etc.) are one of the best ways to deal with a large codebase that needs refactoring. Doing widescale refactors without one is asking for trouble. If you believe you don't need it, either your codebase is just that small (which is fine) or playing with fire.
Much of the advice out there on architecture and tooling isn't properly contextualized on the codebase, market, and team situation. If you believe you have the One True Architecture Solution, you are naive. (Ex. Microservices, large complex code pipelines, monorepos, etc.) Be especially wary of anything from FAANG engineering blogs unless you are also in another letter of FAANG.
There. Got it out of my system. Have fun dissecting it.
The biggest problem with Agile is bad managers fucking it up. But bad managers will fuck things up no matter which way you do things.
But they're going to want to somehow see progress, and they'll leave you alone if they see some cards moving on a board. Even if they have no idea what the cards mean.
Whatever, it's better than having to do status update meetings.
I can't speak for your managers, but my past managers didn't need Agile to f things up. They can do that with anything!
Yeah that was my point. Agile with shitty managers sucks. But any way of doing things with shitty managers sucks.