Talk:Agile software development

XP != Agile

This page is a great description of Agile programming. XP and Agile are two similar, but distinct approaches to software development. They both exist in the real world and they both should be reflected in the Wikipedia.

Well I think that this is not whole truth. XP is just one of the agile methodologies. Agile software development can be an wikipedia category as well.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.122.79 (talk) 20 March 2005

XP is not an agile method, XP is regognized as one method of development, SCRUM is not a development method, its a project method you can use on almost anything, it is true that its mostly used in software development (probably for constant changing enviroment more than other?) The above is very common misconcetition of agile process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.45.133 (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Song lyrics

I agree that the page needs to stay - however, what's with the parody song lyrics here? They shed no light on the subject and don't look very professional. (More "joke".)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.2.60 (talk) 19 April 2005

XP, Scrum, Crystal, etc. are Agile Methods

The History sections says: "Methodologies similar to Agile created prior to 2000—include Scrum (1986), Crystal Clear, Extreme Programming (1996), Adaptive Software Development, Feature Driven Development, and DSDM (1995)." However, according to p. 396 of Sommerville's Software Engineering textbook (reference 7 in the article), these methodologies are different types of agile methods. Will someone confirm this and make the change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.63.120 (talk) 19 November 2007

Question

Why is there no mention that this methodology gets most of it's "new" ideas from the Free Software and/or Open Source development models used by those respective communities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.94.40 (talk) 9 December 2010

Language, writing style

Language and writing style of the article is sloppy and somewhat jargony. I object to formulations such as

Agile is a group of agileologies based

This is in semantics probably a circular definition, because: how then are "agileologies" [jargon] defined? Probably as a set of methodologies within "agile", which teaches us nothing plus vacuum... I don't know now how to fix it, but Agile is a framework of development philosophies and methodologies based on some kind of "best practice" evolved from programmers' experience ("best" only in the sense that we know of no better, so far). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Also "best", presuming a certain problem solving context – this presumptuous boasting speaking style is typical for computer industry, which undermines the authority of the speakers. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

These were certainly a vandalism. I'll revert that to a previous, clean version and then will try to readd your changes. Most of them are not needed, because, e.g. Agile was introduced by the vandal. 1exec1 (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agile vs. agile

The term agile, the methodology set, is small letter in the Agile Manifesto. It should obey the English casing rules, that dictate that the 'A' is uppercase when the term is the first word of a sentence. Starting a sentence with small letter is invalid, it is a typo. The Agile Manifesto on the other hand is always uppercase in the manifesto itself. Since that is allowed in English, we can adher to upper casing of Agile Manifesto. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agile was introduced by a vandal. I've reverted his edits to a previous version, which does not capitalize Agile at all. 1exec1 (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize but now I see. Thank you! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)