And the man himself shows up. Much appreciated; in particular the clarification of your reasoning and a bit more background / history.

I think the notion of "agility" itself maybe part of the problem. As I said in my article it feels like corpo-speak / market-speak double-talk. "Bullshit bingo" as it were. People TALK about "agility" in software programming, but nobody seems to be able to agree on what that actually means.

You would think true agility would simply be the ability to adjust or change plans according to ever-changing requirements, changes in technology, or simply recognizing that the initial planning was flawed.

Do we actually NEED a specific term for something every competent software developer has been doing for 50 years? Or a movement/organization for it?

That's really the heart of my problem with all this stuff. It feels like people who don't program trying to come up with fancy names and ideas for things that already exist and don't need it. Same reason I think the "OOP or nothing" clowns, "Functional programming" chown-shoes, "Clean Code" pedants, and the quacks, morons, and fools creating "frameworks" are all nothing more than either bunko peddlers or outright poseurs.!

Thus why Agile -- and now Agile 2 -- feels fraudulent to me. Well, maybe not fraudulent, but unnecessary. It is the programming plan / philosophy equivalent of how emacs users spend more time dicking around making macro's than they do writing useful code.

But as a friend said about me, "Jason, you're too blue collar for this white collar criminal stuff!"

Which is why so much of the language used by career educators, career lecturers, and "movement organizers" sets off my bullshit alarm. I've no stomach for it. That's my problem with Agile 2... I see a lot of words that don't actually say anything. Again, channeling Steve from Gamers Nexus asking "But what does that mean?"