I'll respond at this level, although the point was only fleshed out in the subsequent discussion with swombat. Brooks was writing about a different thing. No S

I'll respond at this level, although the point was only fleshed out in the subsequent discussion with swombat. Brooks was writing about a different thing. No Silver Bullet is about techniques for writing code. He specifically mentions programming languages, OOP, AI, graphical programming, etc. as examples of 'silver bullet candidates'. His arguments are based on, among other things, the complexity and changeability of the 'software entities', and the main point is that it's hard to get the code right. This all has very little to do with the methodology one uses to organise the writing of code and all the things that need to happen to allow the code to be written. It has become common for people to broaden the meaning of 'No silver bullet' and use it, appropriately or not, in various other contexts. However, in those circumstances, no tribute to Brooks is required if you, for instance, are explaining how there is no single method to make sure your toddler doesn't poke out your cat's eye. Your indignation over the referenceless unoriginality of this blogpost is really unsubstantiated.