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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,c9f2b97a84c48976 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-07 10:46:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr17.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Ken Garlington" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml,comp.lang.java.advocacy References: <9gsvr7$7ho$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9folnd$1t8$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B1FE1FE.B49AE27F@noaa.gov> <9fotpi$4k6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3b24dc21$1@news.tce.com> <3B25D5FB.15C9B240@dresdner-bank.com> <9g5as6$hbq$1@magnum.mmm.com> <9g5ipg$roq$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9g614i$at4$1@magnum.mmm.com> <9g7r02$mni$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3b366a2b$6$fuzhry$mr2ice@va.news.verio.net> <9h7guv$pt1$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B3879CE.AC550F8E@acm.org> <3B3E73E8.F9C36524@ix.netcom.com> <3B405DDF.5C3F9207@acm.org> <3B416975.D7F0691D@ix.netcom.com> <3B432AD8.3828FB9@acm.org> <9i1q0r$324$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <7F917.2087$jf.539468852@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com> <3B4648A3.BECC1FE8@acm.org> Subject: Re: Market pressures for more reliable software Organization: ex-FlashNet, now Prodigy X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.65.208.212 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr17.news.prodigy.com 994527904 6207069 65.65.208.212 (Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:45:04 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 13:45:04 EDT Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 17:45:04 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9607 comp.lang.java.programmer:81145 comp.lang.pl1:1210 comp.lang.vrml:3999 comp.lang.java.advocacy:22823 Date: 2001-07-07T17:45:04+00:00 List-Id: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote in message news:3B4648A3.BECC1FE8@acm.org... : : Ken Garlington wrote: : : > If I understand the argument right, the proposed definition of : > "decentralized programming" is "the programmer did not physically stand at : > the CPU while working." : : That might be Condic's definition; it certainly isn't mine. I'm referring to : such unimportant matters as analysis, design, coding, documentation, : configuration control, debugging and resource allocation. Oddly enough, this is precisely the definition I *thought* you were using. This definition, of course, means that there has never been truly centralized programming, anywhere - even before the advent of computers - for any organization of more than one or two people. (See the part of my discussion that was snipped.) Sort of takes all of the meaning out of the words "decentralized" and "centralized," doesn't it? Personally, I prefer my words to have meaning... : > However, if you consider the environment described by Brooks as "centralized : > programming," there was huge bunches of that when I got into the business, : > both in academia and commercial worlds. Anyone who would claim that the : > existence of HASP/JES (yay Houston!) significantly affected that model : > didn't work in the places where I worked (which had both, but still followed : > the Brooks model). The technology may have existed for large-scale : > "distributed" (in the sense of time-sharing, significant distance from the : > host, etc.), but a lot of organizations in the 70s and even 80s used a : > tightly controlled batch job scheduling approach to manage assets. : : I have no doubt that there were organizations where development was centralized. : I never worked in one even though I've been programming since 1960 and worked : for a hardware vendor, and only once did I work for a company that had a : customer with centralized development. Brooks describes the S/360 OS development environment in "Silver Bullet." IIRC, that was an IBM product. Wasn't IBM a "hardware vendor" back then? (I think they even had a pretty good market share :) Those who worked *directly* for organizations developing business application software might have a different perspective than those who developed the hardware on which those machines operated.