Not sure if you're being sarcastic... git was not invented by "hipsters". Git and other version control systems are the best way to collaborate on big projects and sync them across multiple computers. Just transferring files is a nightmare. You can't work on them at the same time and resolve conflicts, and you don't have a history of changes.

Your inability to spell is not helping your case.

I haven’t used php. I’ve heard bad things. But at the end of the day, I agree that language or framework flame wars are stupid. Readability and performance are ultimately what’s important. And both are highly context dependent; devs that use a language find that language easier to read than other languages, and performance depends on how the machine you’re using is configured, what you’re doing, load, etc. The syntax and performance of a language are just contributing factors in a much larger equation about general readability and performance if your app.

I’m not sure when php would make sense for a greenfield project, though. Django, flask, rails, express... they all seem more approachable, more popular and have better ecosystems than any sort of php framework. But maybe I’m in a bubble.

Working alone will always be slower and way more inefficient than working with other people, as long as those other people know what they're doing, the codebase is modular, and the purposes of different modules are well defined.

Bad people creep in for a number of different reasons:

• Collaboration requires a network of trust (if you're constantly checking people, you may as well just do their job), and vetting people is hard. As the network grows, decay is practically inevitable.
• Determining what is actually BAD and what's a difference of opinion that could be a valuable addition to the project is a very hard problem
• Men don't like telling women they suck, so that filter tends to be much weaker

This problem is inevitable. Attempted takeovers by people who optimized to take things over (not build) will happen in any new project that becomes valuable. The more time you spend fending off those people, the less time you spend contributing and the worse the code gets. The more time you spend contributing, the more likely it is the incompetents will take over.

The only solution is shield your network with a very high bar of entry and to sacrifice a fair amount of development time to vetting people. Keeping that up indefinitely is very, very difficult.

Looks like it's been taken down. Anyone know where it went?

Awesome! And yeah, they partner with a bunch of people looking to employ those of us who complete the program.

Ok, will do. Thanks for the feedback.

This article is scaring the crap out of me. I'm currently enrolled in a training program centered around agile web development, and I have zero experience working on software in a professional environment (I've written code on my own and in school, but I've never been paid for it). I'm about 3 weeks into it, and so far it's seemed like a decent process to me, but I'm worried I'm learning something that will lead to a crappy work environment. I don't have a degree and was hoping to get a job at the end of this program, and now I'm worried I'll end up stuck somewhere where everything is mismanaged.

Should I take this article with a grain of salt? It seems like he's more upset about bad management than agile (I understand his points, especially about the sprints/emphasis on short term goals, but some of the micromanaging stuff seems like it's more dependent on the manager/specificity of stories than the process), and he doesn't seem to offer an alternative. What are the types of places that I should look for as a junior developer, if places that do agile are as bad as this guy suggests? I'm perfectly willing to slog through some crap to "earn my stripes" if that's necessary, but I'd rather find someplace that allows me to demonstrate my skills and move up without having to deal with too much dysfunction.