One of the reasons we have such long, loud, and inconclusive arguments about tools, methodologies, and the like is because we can't properly measure the effectiveness of such things. At the heart of this is the fact that we can't measure the productivity of development teams. Strictly the problem is that we can't measure their output - how much stuff gets cranked out.
-- Martin Fowler, Measuring Productivity
Sorta (Score:2)
Re:Sorta (Score:1)
Very few people, other than in jest, can assign a number of any type to these statements.
"Well, I'll give vi a 6, emacs an 8, but vim definitely gets a 9.3"
Re:Sorta (Score:2)
Re:Sorta (Score:2)
Now you're overstating the case. You started out by saying that BBEdit was the best editor for you.
That's not what Martin Fowler is talking about.
If we really thought hard about it, there might be a reasonable way to measure the productivity of the little things we do on a daily basis -- using text editors or write small programs. That's doubtful, and it's even more doubtful that we could measure project productivity: OK, now do the exact same project with the
Re:Sorta (Score:2)
It is still what I am saying, necessarily. Since the way I measure such things must necessarily be subjective, saying it is better is necessarily saying it is better for me, unless qualified otherwise.
Sorry, but you can't measure productivity in software. Not in any big, meaningful way.
Of course I can, and I do it every day. But it is only big and meaningful to me.
Re:Sorta (Score:1)
Re:Sorta (Score:2)
No, they aren't. It is ONE of the METHODS of measurement. There is no one point of measurement, except maybe the generic point of "comparison."
Ever hear of a "measure of someone's worth"? We measure things like "worth" that all the time, but certainly without numbers.