NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
That's Funny! (Score:1)
Your comment on his post gives me the impression that you didn't understand Brooks's essay either. In my experience, almost no one does.
I read the essay two nights ago, and all I have to say is that--whether due to Moore's Law or whatever, I don't care--I'm at least an order of magnitude more productive doing test-driven development with a language that supplies automatic memory management and the creation of domain-appropriate abstractions than I would be with the best language and platform available fo
Re: (Score:2)
You say that you're an order of magnitude more productive using test driven development and a language with automati
Re: (Score:1)
I thought Brooks qualified his theory with "In the next ten years", but I'm too lazy to walk two rooms over to check right now. Regardless, our understandings are equivalent.
For what it's worth, I do think a lot of people claiming "no silver bullet" are pessimists.
Re: (Score:2)
He later says, however, that software will always be hard, despite any decade comment:
Re:That's Funny! (Score:2)
I meant to say, if you think that first paragraph is false, then Brooks isn't really saying anything. If you think it's true, as I do, then he's saying there's no silver bullet.
Reply to This
Parent