comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results)H
  1991-06-20 14:35     ` chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results) Alex Blakemore
@ 1991-06-21 12:40       ` house ron
  1991-06-21 22:25         ` Jim Showalter
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: house ron @ 1991-06-21 12:40 UTC (permalink / raw)


blakemor@software.software.org (Alex Blakemore) writes:

>In article <1991Jun18.220609.19103@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
>> One of the most successful Ada projects I'm aware of organized job
>> descriptions and responsibilities in such a way that a relatively small
>> number of exceptionally clever people was responsible for the architecture
>> (as captured in subsystem decomposition and subsystem interface specification),

>This makes sense and sounds like it can work well. It's really just
>the chief programmer teams from the Mythical Man Month by Fred Brookes.
>One obvious caveat - you really better have the right people
>in the chief programmer roles or you are sunk.  This organization

The book "Software that Works" by Michael Ward recommends against this for
exactly the reason you mention, among others.  He feels that the programmers
must be involved in design, and that design/programming should alternate,
rather than one coming first in a big chunk followed by the other.
That's my potted version, anyway.

--
Regards,

Ron House.   (s64421@zeus.usq.edu.au)
(By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results)H
  1991-06-21 12:40       ` chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results)H house ron
@ 1991-06-21 22:25         ` Jim Showalter
  1991-06-26 22:18           ` Dan Weinreb
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jim Showalter @ 1991-06-21 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)


s64421@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) writes:
>blakemor@software.software.org (Alex Blakemore) writes:
>>In article <1991Jun18.220609.19103@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
>>> One of the most successful Ada projects I'm aware of organized job
>>> descriptions and responsibilities in such a way that a relatively small
>>> number of exceptionally clever people was responsible for the architecture
>>> (as captured in subsystem decomposition and subsystem interface specification),
>>This makes sense and sounds like it can work well. It's really just
>>the chief programmer teams from the Mythical Man Month by Fred Brookes.
>>One obvious caveat - you really better have the right people
>>in the chief programmer roles or you are sunk.  This organization

>The book "Software that Works" by Michael Ward recommends against this for
>exactly the reason you mention, among others.  He feels that the programmers
>must be involved in design, and that design/programming should alternate,
>rather than one coming first in a big chunk followed by the other.
>That's my potted version, anyway.

Well, I certainly agree that design/programming should alternate--that's the
basis of iterative development. On the other hand, I
fail to see what this has to do with the notion that some people are better
than others at design, and that those who are the BEST at design probably
ought to be the ones making the most critical decisions on the project.
If someone can provide me with an explanation for why junior programmers
should be making architectural decisions affecting the entire project,
I'm all ears.
-- 
*** LIMITLESS SOFTWARE, Inc: Jim Showalter, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****
*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++.    *

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results)H
  1991-06-21 22:25         ` Jim Showalter
@ 1991-06-26 22:18           ` Dan Weinreb
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dan Weinreb @ 1991-06-26 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw)


In article <1991Jun21.222536.18888@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:

   If someone can provide me with an explanation for why junior programmers
   should be making architectural decisions affecting the entire project,
   I'm all ears.

I generally agree with the point you're making.  In my experience,
what really happens is more complex than anything described in any of
these postings.  Iterative development of software within a team is a
social interaction between people.  It's not a question of "command
and obey", but a give-and-take with conversations and discussions.  In
general, when I've been involved with this, the more senior
"architect"-type people end up having more say about design issues.
But if one of the other team members has a good idea, that idea can
certainly be used, and a good architect should pay attention to
everyone's ideas and be quick to credit and use ideas from anyone.
This is part of the process by which the more junior people become
more senior, and it helps keep everybody motivated and excited.  An
important thing about the concensus process is to establish an
atmosphere of mutual respect and trust, so that when there are
disagreements on how to proceed, people will be able to compromise,
or to willingly give up their proposals and go along with someone
else's, without resentment.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results)H
@ 1991-07-04 22:30 Operator
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Operator @ 1991-07-04 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)


In article <1991Jun26.221811.5950@odi.com>, dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb) writes:
|> In article <1991Jun21.222536.18888@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim
Showalter) writes:
|> 
|>    If someone can provide me with an explanation for why junior
programmers
|>    should be making architectural decisions affecting the entire
project,
|>    I'm all ears.
|> 
1: Junior programmers are less experienced, not (necessarily) less
intelligent, less innovative,
less educated, or less resourceful.
1.1: Age has a fairly direct impact on beauty, but on brainpower no
strong correlation has been deomonstrated.

2: Junior programmers are (usually) closer to "fresh out of school" than
we, which means (in general)
2.1: their Profs taught them the solutions to the mistakes that our
Profs made teaching us
2.2: Their education is based on less obsolete hardware, software, and
engineering paradigms than ours
2.3: they are less resistant to learning a new method to solving the
problem at hand than the relativly more
crusted, wizened, and lofty senior.

3: Further embarrassments available upon request, but please keep in
mind that the "half life" of experience in
the computer engineering field is about 5 years. I.e. what you learned 5
years ago is loosing the last parts of its'
relavence now.

Brian (the Senior and student of the Juniors) Brunner

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~1991-07-04 22:30 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1991-07-04 22:30 chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results)H Operator
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1991-06-18 12:28 c++ vs ada results Mats Henricson
1991-06-18 22:06 ` Jim Showalter
1991-06-19 17:00   ` Doug Smith
1991-06-20 14:35     ` chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results) Alex Blakemore
1991-06-21 12:40       ` chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results)H house ron
1991-06-21 22:25         ` Jim Showalter
1991-06-26 22:18           ` Dan Weinreb

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox