Re: chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results)H

[jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter)]

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++.    *