Scrum is a cancer
I’ve developed a more nuanced view on Scrum since working as a contractor for a medium sized software company, but adjacent to their normal dev teams.<p>I used to have the view that Scrum is a useless batch of meetings, that sucks the life and productivity out of the dev process.<p>Now, after seeing it from an adjacent (but not subjugated under it) perspective, I think it is a life-sucking batch of meetings that are good for one thing: taking developers who can’t or don’t want to see the overall business&#x2F;architecture picture and getting useful work out of them.<p>Most of us here are not in that category. I’d wager a majority of HN readers can’t help but to seek out understanding of the business, where this piece fits, what it interacts with. For us, specifying everything upfront is useless. Estimating stuff is irritating because we need the flexibility to make smart decisions during dev. Retro meetings are lies because we can’t say “stop with all this and let me work”.<p>But if you’re trying to make a process than can take junior devs (not junior in tenure, but junior in the qualities above) and produce an output that scales almost-kinda linearly with dev count, it sort of works.<p>I’d argue that you’re way better off hiring 6 devs that can go from business problem -&gt; technical solution in their head, without all the ceremony, instead of 40 devs who can’t and 6 PMs to wrangle them.<p>But I can also see how a company ends up there - go through a tough hiring year, or even just make a few poor hiring decisions, and now you have people on the team who need handholding and supervision. That’s what scrum is; it feels like micromanagement because it is. It forces junior-performing devs into a productive state - maybe 5% of what you’d get out of a senior-performing dev without scrum, but it’s something non-negative.