4 ms·

But working on “more important” problems, particularly abstract ones, while the basics fail is precisely the complaint about architects: They’re so busy with t

But working on “more important” problems, particularly abstract ones, while the basics fail is precisely the complaint about architects: They’re so busy with their “more important” issues, that the whole thing fails in practice. If they truly had organizational wisdom we could utilize, why don’t they deploy it themselves, to keep their website online during small spikes in traffic? If their work can’t even be applied to their own organization successfully, why should we believe it will be successful elsewhere?

cc81 7y ago
How is that even relevant though? She is commenting on that software should be involved earlier in huge military projects that have previously been dominated by hardware and you are nitpicking that the university web server cannot handle the traffic?
- FakeComments 7y ago
  Yes — their engineering development principles can’t be (or haven’t been) used to successfully design and deploy a well understood technology like a website that can handle small spikes in traffic; why should we believe they have useful advice for more difficult projects? “Physician, heal thyself.”
  - anonytrary 7y ago
    > Yes — their engineering development principles can’t be (or haven’t been) used to successfully design and deploy a well understood technology like a website that can handle small spikes in traffic; why should we believe they have useful advice for more difficult projects? This is such a weak argument. Where did you hear that their principles were not being applied in real life? Why do you automatically assume the university's website is built on their principles? This entire discussion is trivial.
    - FakeComments 7y ago
      > Where did you hear that their principles were not being applied in real life? They didn’t cite examples in support. > Why do you automatically assume the university's website is built on their principles? >> can’t be (or haven’t been) Similarly, I didn’t assume that the university website had been — I pointed out that they hadn’t been successfully, either because of failure or lack of application. But the implication is that theoretical solutions you can’t apply in a simplified domain are likely to be wrong — and that they’ve failed to show success in a simplified domain before pushing those techniques to major projects. It’s not trivial at all, it’s precisely the problem with architects: they pitch theory based grand designs, but from organizations that can’t solve simple problems successfully. Again, why should we believe an organization that can’t run a website can successfully manage large scale projects? Despite downvotes and snarky, inaccurate replies, no one has an answer for that question.

cc81 7y ago

How is that even relevant though? She is commenting on that software should be involved earlier in huge military projects that have previously been dominated by hardware and you are nitpicking that the university web server cannot handle the traffic?

FakeComments 7y ago
Yes — their engineering development principles can’t be (or haven’t been) used to successfully design and deploy a well understood technology like a website that can handle small spikes in traffic; why should we believe they have useful advice for more difficult projects? “Physician, heal thyself.”
- anonytrary 7y ago
  > Yes — their engineering development principles can’t be (or haven’t been) used to successfully design and deploy a well understood technology like a website that can handle small spikes in traffic; why should we believe they have useful advice for more difficult projects? This is such a weak argument. Where did you hear that their principles were not being applied in real life? Why do you automatically assume the university's website is built on their principles? This entire discussion is trivial.
  - FakeComments 7y ago
    > Where did you hear that their principles were not being applied in real life? They didn’t cite examples in support. > Why do you automatically assume the university's website is built on their principles? >> can’t be (or haven’t been) Similarly, I didn’t assume that the university website had been — I pointed out that they hadn’t been successfully, either because of failure or lack of application. But the implication is that theoretical solutions you can’t apply in a simplified domain are likely to be wrong — and that they’ve failed to show success in a simplified domain before pushing those techniques to major projects. It’s not trivial at all, it’s precisely the problem with architects: they pitch theory based grand designs, but from organizations that can’t solve simple problems successfully. Again, why should we believe an organization that can’t run a website can successfully manage large scale projects? Despite downvotes and snarky, inaccurate replies, no one has an answer for that question.