From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!olivea!apple!netcomsv!jls
From: jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results)
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.003713.25013@netcom.COM>
Date: 26 Jun 91 00:37:13 GMT
References: <1991Jun20.143535.27176@software.org> <25587@well.sf.ca.us> <1991Jun23.032353.8718@netcom.COM> <1066@dumbcat.sf.ca.us> <63@tdatirv.UUCP>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>>I'd guess seven would be the top end,
>>providing you have the right seven.  Three seems to be a good number in
>>practice.

>This certainly fits with my experience.

>A few years ago I was working on a 'large' project (for another company).
>We had a team of about 10-12 programmers on the project for most of its
>run.  When we finally quit, 2 years behaind schedule, we had a system
>that didn't really work, was almost unmaintainable and had at least twice
>the code necessary to do the job.

Please define 'large'. This whole discussion hinges on what that term
means to various people.
-- 
*** 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++.    *