coding is like sculpting - but is it agile?

I've had a recent epiphany:  coding is like sculpting.  I guess it took me a while to see the connection (since I'm not a sculptor), but as I imagine it, sculpting goes something like this:

• Get a big pile of clay.
• Reduce the pile of clay to the size of the intended sculpture.
• Start cutting the clay into a roughly hewn representation of the sculpture.
• Examine your work - is the design going as intended?  If so, continue, else start over.
• Refine your sculpture with finer cuts - yielding a less coarse result.
• Examine your work again.  If on track, continue, else back-up.
• Continue refining your piece - refining, backing up, continuing, etc.
• Repeat for as many steps as needed.

I've lived with Agile for many years - and my conclusion is that Agile is purposefully designed to support the idea that coding is like sculpting.

Every sprint is your opportunity to move your sculpture forward to it's next level of refinement.  Said another way, at the end of each sprint, your sculpture should be a finer version of what you sculpted the prior sprint.

Agile gives this a name:  the vertical slice.  Every sprint should be a working model that moves (feature-wise) closer toward the end result.

I begrudgingly admit these facts, since I admit I set about writing this to bash Agile for not supporting the notion that coding is like sculpting - when in fact, I concluded the opposite.  Score one for Agile.

the "wish and hope" strategy

As a self-proclaimed AMD fan-boy, I have to add my commentary on their recent Bulldozer release.

I'm really disappointed.

It isn't just a matter of being disappointed in the chip.  The Bulldozer failure is a reflection on the engineers and management at AMD.  They must have adopted a "wish and hope" strategy - and that's unfortunate.  They hoped that setting a World Record overclock would matter - but it doesn't.  They hoped having eight cores would be a strong differentiator - but it isn't.

I imagine there was an AMD Bulldozer engineer who convinced his Product Marketing what direction to take the chip.  This engineer's approach was academic - focusing on architectural perfection - instead of what the market wanted.

All we wanted was a new cpu that would put a beat-down on the Core i7 - and AMD didn't deliver.  In my opinion, AMD should have held the Bulldozer release.  Would BMW release a new M5 that couldn't beat Mercede's latest AMG?  No way!!  I think I speak for many when I say I want to be proud of the cpu I choose for my system.  I've been taking a beating from my friends for years for continuing to support AMD.  I knew I would be able to dish it right back at them when the Bulldozer came out... but no... I'm still the dummy.

You goofed up, AMD.  You lost sight of what was important, you rushed a product to market, and you "wished and hoped" we'd be okay with it.  Left with the same decision, I would have simply moved the Phenom to 32 nm and made it an 8-core.  That'd be a true 8-core, none of this shared floating-point pipeline kind-of-but-not-quite-hyperthreading Bulldozer mess.  Instead, you're end-of-life-ing the Phenom.  What?!

Here's my message for everyone trying to bring a new product to market:  don't "wish and hope" that your potential future customers won't notice if you release something that isn't the best - because they will.  Instead, work with your customers:  learn how they'll benchmark your product, and learn what qualities will distinguish your product as a great one.  Then focus like hell on these "qualities of greatness" - and you won't have to wish or hope.