[HN Gopher] Evidence-Based Software Engineering based on publicl...
___________________________________________________________________
Evidence-Based Software Engineering based on publicly available
data
Author : teleforce
Score : 106 points
Date : 2021-05-24 16:43 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.knosof.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.knosof.co.uk)
| gawi wrote:
| I really like the cover where you can find illustrations of anti-
| patterns such as stovepipes, gas factories, reinventing the
| wheel, etc.
|
| Can you names the others?
| harveywi wrote:
| A cover when the document is digital.
| swiley wrote:
| I wish more stuff came with fun illustrations as canonical
| "covers." Also the file looks like it's probably exactly what
| they gave to the printers (the left and right margins are
| different for odd/even pages.)
| [deleted]
| bckr wrote:
| I'm glad this has been published. It would be tempting to delay
| such a publication until more data is available. However, the
| author(s?) are doing it in the way of honest science, and
| hopefully this will catalyze further work on EBSE. Who knows,
| maybe the big companies will decide that the rising tide effect
| is worthwhile and fill in the gaps.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I love the idea, and the honest assessment of the quality of the
| available data. But good grief, cut to the chase already! This
| reads like they felt they had to give a thorough discussion to
| every possibly relevant tangential idea.
|
| I recommend skimming rather than straight-up reading.
| neves wrote:
| This well written book from O'Reilly covers the same subject:
| https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/making-software/9780596...
|
| It is from 2010, I don't know if their is really new things on
| the subject
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| >>> based on an analysis of all the publicly available data This
| aim is not as ambitious as it sounds, because there is not a
| great deal of data publicly available.
|
| Amusing and revealing at the same time. Bet they did not take
| long to agree on that senrence
| ExcavateGrandMa wrote:
| Ah! yes of course.
| juskrey wrote:
| Oh well, all of my 20 years of software engineering are a tale of
| fighting in the dark before anything works and heavy precaution
| after, without having any remote evidence of nearly everything
| readily available.
| moksly wrote:
| That's the most interesting find of the book isn't it?
|
| We've taken a sort of controversial approach to software
| development in the public sector of Denmark because we don't
| have enough resources. Small projects are build to run their
| own little lives with as little post-deployment development as
| possible. Because of this they aren't build with best
| practices, whatever theories are the right way to do things in
| a current age, none of them are automatically tested because
| their functionally is so small it's always going to be obvious
| where the flaws are and the only way for them to get additional
| development post deployment is if they turn out to be really
| good, and even then, we don't expect them to live after 5-10
| years.
|
| It's way of development goes against every theory on software
| development you'll find being taught at universities and
| academies, I know, because I'm an external CS examiner at these
| places, and we've really only chosen to do this because we have
| 3 developers in an organisation with 10.000 employees.
|
| Now the data shows us, that we're actually better off doing the
| wrong thing.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-24 23:00 UTC)