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: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,c9f2b97a84c48976 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-16 10:39:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!207.115.63.138!newscon04.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.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> <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> <3B47CB75.234C0543@acm.or g> <3b52d7f5$1$fuzhry$mr2ice@va.news.verio.net> 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: 65.65.210.237 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com 995305041 6207069 65.65.210.237 (Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:37:21 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:37:21 EDT Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:37:21 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10009 comp.lang.java.programmer:82774 comp.lang.pl1:1238 comp.lang.vrml:4049 comp.lang.java.advocacy:23576 Date: 2001-07-16T17:37:21+00:00 List-Id: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote in message news:3b52d7f5$1$fuzhry$mr2ice@va.news.verio.net... : In , on 07/16/2001 : at 12:56 AM, "Ken Garlington" said: : : >Errr... hello? Note that I am saying that *your definition* of : >decentralized programming would lead one to the exact ridiculous : >conclusion that you take so much care in ridiculing. : : I noted that you said that; I also noted that your claim was bogus. Unfortunately, your argument was a straw man, since you used a definition different than the one I referenced in my premise. : >I'm glad that we agree that defining "decentalized" in the manner : >you appear to espouse is silly, since then there would then be no : >possible chance to have a "centralized" environment. : : Really? No chance of having centralized control over programming, etc? : It's not only possible, it's been done, quite often. My claim was that : it was done only in specific contexts rather than as an industry norm. Since your definition of "centralized programming" seems now to be based on organizational structures, not technology (making your earlier discussion of remote job entry somewhat puzzling), perhaps you could post some examples of "centralized programming" from this list of historical precedents which occured "quite often," yet not frequently enough to be an "industry norm", and discuss what key concepts they shared to make them "centralized". Per your previous post, such "centralization" should encompass analysis, design, coding, documentation, configuration control, debugging and resource allocation. (This would seem to be more "software engineering" than programming, but that's a minor point.) : However, now I'm quite puzzled at what position you are trying to : defend. JUst what is it that you claim was universally centralized : prior to the PC, and by what definition, since you deny that : cetralization of the obvious is possible? As I noted previously, one definition of "centralized" programming is the business environment as described in Brooks (and other respondents to this thread), with the key concepts of (a) the CPUs are physically located close together, in a single room or suite and (b) where the task of programming (coding) requires the programmers to either enter the program at a single "master" console, or to submit the programming job to a centrally located operator corps for entry. By contrast, "decentralized" programming has automation routinely available at the programmer's work station (desk, etc.) without need of an intermediary. (Brooks describes this as "interactive programming," and indicates that it was rarely used at the time even though the technology was available - see pg. 136.) We can further refine this by distinguishing between the use of time-sharing systems connected directed to the centralized set of CPUs described above using "dumb" terminals, etc., vs. the availability of individual CPUs (PCs, etc.) from each programmer's desk. The former case would still be considered "centralized" by some, since a failure in the main computing cluster took down all available services, the availability of tools, etc. could still be centrally controlled, and so forth. My claim (supported by Brooks and other respondents to this thread) is that this concept of "decentralized programming," certainly the more "permissive" second type described above, was not typically used in business computing in the early years of that field. The definition presented above notes the relevance of the PC to this argument. : >Actually, I made an A in my logic course. : : Then you must have forgotten quite a bit. Either that, or you are : deliberate refraining from logic. Or that the logic taught in computer science in mathematics is a subset of that needed for logical argument (see below). : >How did you do in your debate course? : : Ah, so you have decided that winning a debate is more important than : being correct? Based on this evasive answer (and the inability to see more than two possibilities in the previous statement), I assume you've never taken a debate course and are unfamiliar with its goals. There are several resources on the web that describe constructing a logical argument, and the associated fallacies often committed by the uneducated or devious. I recommend http://faqs.jmas.co.jp/FAQs/atheism/logic I suppose that you could establish "being correct" through some means other than the logic steps taught in debate classes (faith, etc.), but it would be hypocritical to use these methods and then castigate others for "refraining from logic." : >So, you experience on the customer side indicates that the Brooks : >description is atypical? : : My experience on the customer side indicates that there is massive : variation in management style. I don't recall Brooks denying that. : Brooks was describing how things were at IBM, or at least how he : perceived them. Actually, if you haven't read "Mythical Math-Month" (or have forgotten it), you might want to read it (again). Certainly, no one who reads it should come away thinking he was limiting himself to IBM. His description of organizational structures is on pg. 78-79; given the various forms of your definition of "decentralized programming", I couldn't say whether he describes a "decentralized" organizational structure or a "centralized" structure.