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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1ea92c0e5255811d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-03-04 08:33:42 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!beamish.news.atl.earthlink.net!guinness.news.atl.earthlink.net!news.atl.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: Richard Riehle Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:44:14 -0800 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3E64D7DE.512CE499@adaworks.com> References: Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.bb.a9.4c Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 4 Mar 2003 16:33:41 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:34861 Date: 2003-03-04T16:33:41+00:00 List-Id: "Frank J. Lhota" wrote: > > Unfortunately, as this points out in yet another way, the classic Adam > > Smith free market works very poorly for software. > > There is a simple experiment ... > Try out you old word > processor, the one that only worked with fixed pitch fonts, and could only > render a smooth right edge by periodically inserting extra blanks into your > text. Actually, one can also look at this from the perspective of productivity. Those early word processors, with their fixed pitch fonts and limited formatting capabilities provided a high level of productivity compared to the more complex word processors of today. One simply began typing a manuscript, got it finished and went on to the next one. One of the worst productivity inhibitors, for word processing, is the mouse. In fact, the mouse detracts from productivity in lots of environments. We have all observed the typist who, upon making a simple error in a line of text, stops, reaches for the mouse, highlights the error, makes the correction, returns to the keyboard and continues typing. In a word processor without a mouse, that same typist will simply backspace over the character, make the correction and move on. The plethora of available windows also distracts the writer from simply writing. C. Northcote Parkinson, originator of Parkinson's Law, wrote that "Work expands to fill the amount of time available to do it." In the modern world of multiple-option windowing environments, we can rephrase this to, "Work expands to accomodate the number of features available to do it." When we design applications such as an order entry system, we want to limit the availability of windowing options for the clerk engaged in that activity. We want to disable a lot of features, including word processing, unlimited access to the Internet, and games. I see designers who still do not understand this important idea. We need some input from industrial engineering practice so we can understand the nature of productivity once again. Richard Riehle