3 ms·
Thanks for the link. I haven't read it, but from the name and the little I know about NASA software development practices, it's not clear to me at all that thes
by grzm 9y ago
Thanks for the link. I haven't read it, but from the name and the little I know about NASA software development practices, it's not clear to me at all that these are inconsistent. They're orthogonal, if anything. Are they not? Is there something in CMM that says that complex systems are not more difficult to understand (and therefore more likely to hide/contain bugs)?
Where a particular set of companies falls on such a scale is also independent of this, isn't it? I feel like I'm missing something (which admittedly may be because I haven't read the linked PDF), so if you'd be willing to take the time to expound, I'd appreciate it.
- wglb 9y agoThe point of the CMM is that it is a measure of an organization's capability to develop error free software. The trick is that it is a very time consuming, deliberate process. Not exactly agile. Read: vastly increases cost of developing software, certainly increases time to market.
- grzm 9y agoThanks for the synopsis. Given what you've written here I don't see how that would be in opposition to what I've written above. A team could have a goal of writing simpler, composable code and use CMM to measure their capability against CMM criteria. Or am I misunderstanding?
- wglb 9y agoWithout question. But CMM covers more than that--how requirements are gathered, reviewed, approved; who in the chain has the proper training and at what level. It much more than just coding. And how all of this is measured. So if the goal is writing simpler code, it is about how you would measure that.