Coders just want to code. Waterfall means you have to wait before you code, and plan, and organize. Agile means you just start coding, and code and code and code until you leave and someone else has to clean up the mess.
This is no different than most other activities in life. See the Stanford marshmallow experiment.
So you are saying that agile happened because of coders and not because there were fundamental problems with using waterfall on large projects?
No part of agile says that you get rid of planning and organizing, it is just done in smaller slices in shorter cycles.
Having used both over 25 years, I wouldn't look back at waterfall for any project except the very smallest. No-one allows you to lock some requirements in for 5 years any more, something that was accepted back in the day. I have plenty of examples of waterfall projects that delivered a number of things that simply weren't required any more and that was a failure of a long-tail project plan.
Agile also allows you to work iteratively on a project that is never finished i.e. SaaS, which is not possible with waterfall.
I think this is half of it. From my experience, the other half is that "agile" is a wonderful excuse for managers and product managers not to have to plan anything or commit to any priorities, and for software companies not to hire project managers. I don't think this is particularly agile's fault; no process can fix broken organizations, and most tech organizations are broken. Luckily the magic money machine papers over grotesque inefficiencies so we can all be gainfully employed without having to become real professionals!
This is no different than most other activities in life. See the Stanford marshmallow experiment.