Comments on: Babel, Software, Work

By: JD

JD — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 03:06:43 +0000

This means that as the number of developers grows linearly, the number of communication paths grows exponentially. Please, please do not abuse the word "exponentially" in this fashion. "Exponentially" may be the most pseudoscientifically abused word in the English language---people just use it as a puffed-up synonym for "really really fast" when they want to blind their listeners with "science". The number of communication paths in a software project grows quadratically, i.e. as the square of the number of developers (unless you assume that communication paths are between the elements of the power set of all developers---which neither Brooks, nor anybody else I'm aware of, has proposed.).

By: Lurker

Lurker — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:21:31 +0000

XP practices have greater applicability to in-house software projects and to a lesser degree, works for hire. How many customers do you know that want to be caged with software developers for months on in? Watching them program? Not many me thinks. As for as embedded systems, e.g. cell phones, TV’s, video games, appliances, and all those other invisible computers, it has little or no practicality. The design for test piece is useful, but that discipline exists independent of XP. For your further software adventures, I recommend http://www.joelonsoftware.com. He has an archive of really interesting articles, and he writes in a way that, though simplified for we human language impaired engineers, you liberal arts folks can appreciate. Be sure to check out the philosophy of how he hires and ranks his employees. It’s an interesting rubber-meets-the road study of someone who recognizes the absurdities of the whole software development enterprise, and his attempts to make it more humane.

By: Scott Martens

Scott Martens — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:44:17 +0000

Tripp, I’ve been expecting a software model of that type for some time too. Shrink-wrap software is being replaced by a more modular vision of software, where both code and computer services come as a package. This sort of deal is more labour intensive, but the services side is more and more the work of less espensive computer people instead of elite CS grads. It also means that software is more responsive to actual customer needs. Even though it’s more labour intensive, it seems that this sort of model can lower total cost of use and increase value added enough to justify it.

By: Tripp

Tripp — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:02:39 +0000

I’ve been thinking of “The Mythical Man Month” as it relates to the latest trend to send Software project overseas to China and India. Apparently, programmers are paid 1/12th what they are in the US. I can just imagine some manager thinking “Wow, I can get the job done in 1/12th the time,” or any other combination of cost/time. I make the following predictions: 1. The trend is inevitable, and will continue. 2. Savings will be less than expected. 3. US programmers will be relegated to the software services industry. 4. You’ll have extremely cheap software, but you’ll have to hire a service person to install and configure it.

By: Shai

Shai — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:24:00 +0000

Actually, the video on the navy.mil site is 647MB mpeg1 in addition to being a lower resolution to the other link which is a 135MB mpeg4 wmv. So again, email if interested. I’m watching it again right now… pretty interesting.

By: Shai

Shai — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 02:13:04 +0000

Extreme Programming has some nice ideas (pair programming), but it also has some faddish elements that usually appeal to people who have never taken a course in software engineering or managing software development. XP is only one process model among many. see for example, CMU Software Engineering Institute They used to have the lectures of their graduate course in managing software development available for free in video format, but unfortunately the page seems to be gone now. There are lecture notes everwhere at other universities for other courses though (google). Fred Brooks 2000 Turing lecture titled “The Design of Design” is here. If anyone wants to see the full video in a larger resolution I do have a link, but I won’t post it here because I’m afraid it will be flooded off the internet (email me if interested).

By: Russell L. Carter

Russell L. Carter — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:52:43 +0000

“I’m in favour: test first, pair programming, refactor lots, all fine with me.” I’ve always thought that XP (well just the pair programming) is just another way of keeping the worker-bees on the job. Continuous peer-review, and all that. But the insidious thing is that it is voluntary, and that one just ‘slings code’; there’s no way to build in the fact that I don’t want to sit there and watch you think. So you won’t. I’m watching you… tapping my fingers… Collaboration is at the essence of creativity to be sure, but almost all successful collaborations are self-selected. I recognize that there is a certain irony to posting this complaint to a blog entry.

By: Tom Runnacles

Tom Runnacles — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:36:47 +0000

XP? Got me bang to rights, guv. Actually I’m reading Kent Beck’s original book on the subject right now. I’m in favour: test first, pair programming, refactor lots, all fine with me. In fact, I’ve spent quite a bit of time working on projects which half-heartedly follow XP practices, but I must admit I’ve never experienced the whole shebang implemented at once. I doubt it’s a silver bullet, but some well-intentioned and extremely smart people have good things to say about it. If XP helps developers stay in control of their code (and their lives), all the better.

By: tew

tew — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:14:33 +0000

Sounds like you’re about two hours of websurfing from coming across Extreme Programming, the latest incarnation of this phenomenon.