They Write the Right Stuff (1996)
fastcompany.com
They Write the Right Stuff (1996)
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)
#2> "How do they write the right stuff?
The answer is, it’s the process. The group’s most important creation is not the perfect software they write — it’s the process they invented that writes the perfect software.
It’s the process that allows them to live normal lives, to set deadlines they actually meet, to stay on budget, to deliver software that does exactly what it promises. It’s the process that defines what these coders in the flat plains of southeast suburban Houston know that everyone else in the software world is still groping for. It’s the process that offers a template for any creative enterprise that’s looking for a method to produce consistent – and consistently improving — quality."
I think here it is part of the solution. The team culture should be strong as also, to achieve a good software.
Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)
#3> "How do they write the right stuff? The answer is, it’s the process. The group’s most important creation is not the perfect software they write — it’s the process they invented that writes the perfect software. It’s the process that allows them to live normal lives, to set deadlines they actually meet, to stay on budget, to deliver software that does exactly what it promises. It’s the process that defines what thes…
According to the article, 260 people are writing code for systems with strict specifications that do not change much over time. That's a significant constraint on the externalities they deal with.
In contrast, most commercial programmers write an order of magnitude more code for systems far less defined with more unpredictable externalities, with shorter deadlines.
There is no magic in the world. Everything has a reason, and it's often not (just) due to incompetence or stupidity.
Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)
#4Sounds the very opposite of Agile with a huge emphasis on up front requirements.
Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)
#5We don't build software like a bridge; we grow it like a garden. The industrial revolution was about building machines that dominate its environment. The software revolution is about writing code to resonate with its environment. The software grows in harmony with its user and business needs. Except, of course, for special cases such as this.
"The whole approach to developing software is intentionally designed not to rely on any particular person."
Our programming culture is not ready for this. Any programmer who identifies with their craft will never want to be another cog in the machine. A programmer could have chosen to be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc. but they choose to code because it is one of the way they can "express" themselves.
Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)
#6It's an interesting approach to a problem that most of us don't have, and so is not applicable to the majority of people writing software.
The key is to understand the risk/reward trade-off in their software stack. For the vast majority of software that is written, no one dies if it goes wrong. In fact, for the vast majority of software, it's a minor inconvenience when a bug bites. Because of this, time to market trumps correctness. It's a totally valid trade-off, but just not very satisfying from an engineering perspective.
Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)
#7Basically, it is possible to write largely bug free code ... this is what it costs.
Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)
#8For me there is still a big question how much process and people matter for the quality.
This article suggests process should be the primary focus.
Books like Peopleware suggest that people matter most.
Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)
#9We don't build software like a bridge; we grow it like a garden. The industrial revolution was about building machines that dominate its environment. The software revolution is about writing code to resonate with its environment. The software grows in harmony with its user and business needs. Except, of course, for special cases such as this. "The whole approach to developing software is intentionally designed not to…
> A programmer could have chosen to be a doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc. but they choose to code because it is one of the way they can "express" themselves.
Not necessarily. I chose to code because I'm good at it and because I'm not good enough at anything else to do it as a job. Well, at least not in the same salary range.
I agree with your point otherwise but I'm not sure that people solely choose to become software developers because they wish to express themselves through their work. A lot of developers I know personally see coding as just a job. A job they like, but a job.
Re: They Write the Right Stuff (1996)
#10> How do they write the right stuff?
The article claims that it is their process, and although they are certainly extremely thorough, I don't buy it. At the very least, they cannot be compared to most developers apples to apples.
Why?
> NASA and the Lockheed Martin group agree in the most minute detail about everything the new code is supposed to do — and they commit that understanding to paper, with the kind of specificity and precision usually found in blueprints. Nothing in the specs is changed without agreement and understanding from both sides.
For most anyone working as a developer, could you even imagine what this would be like? Specs not changing or only changing in very small ways that are documented to the nth degree not only is impossible from a practical standpoint for most fields of software development, but such a different process that it's essentially a completely different field of work.
> Most people choose to spend their money at the wrong end of the process
> In the modern software environment, 80% of the cost of the software is spent after the software is written the first time
I would argue that this is largely the result of:
1. Incompetency as far as specifications go (suits don't know what they want, or what they are asking for)
2. Large changes in the specification (moving target)