I feel like people who are opposed to agile and scrum often make out things of it that are in no way prescribed by these methodologies. For example, I see people mentioning the idea that with scrum, you should release working software every sprint. This is not the case. The idea is to deliver a _potentially_ shippable product increment - a.k.a. not building 10 bridges in parallel if there's no need for it. Some might even call this common sense.
Most people who are pessimistic about the agile development who I have spoken to are usually pessimistic because of poor implementations they've encountered. Any methodology is awful when misused or when hidden agendas are at play. No methodology will ever solve that.
That being said (probably onpopular opinion), I often also see engineers use agile to blame everything that is going wrong onto "management" and use it as way of avoiding responsibility. Complaining and arguing as if there are only absolutes is an immature and unproductive attitude. Calling agile "nonsense" is a prime example of that.
Most people who are pessimistic about the agile development who I have spoken to are usually pessimistic because of poor implementations they've encountered. Any methodology is awful when misused or when hidden agendas are at play. No methodology will ever solve that.
That being said (probably onpopular opinion), I often also see engineers use agile to blame everything that is going wrong onto "management" and use it as way of avoiding responsibility. Complaining and arguing as if there are only absolutes is an immature and unproductive attitude. Calling agile "nonsense" is a prime example of that.