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=1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:5759 comp.lang.c++:14278 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!zeus!s64421 From: s64421@zeus.usq.EDU.AU (house ron) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results)H Message-ID: Date: 21 Jun 91 12:40:53 GMT References: <1991Jun18.122812.18190@eua.ericsson.se> <1991Jun18.220609.19103@netcom.COM> <1991Jun19.170047.25064@software.org> <1991Jun20.143535.27176@software.org> List-Id: 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. -- Regards, Ron House. (s64421@zeus.usq.edu.au) (By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)