6 ms·

Thought I'd better check this. I went through the book's eponymous chapter 2 The Mythical Man-Month (p.14, 1975 ed), and it has not a single table; not a single

Thought I'd better check this. I went through the book's eponymous chapter 2 The Mythical Man-Month (p.14, 1975 ed), and it has not a single table; not a single datum. It has many graphs, without data points, and the text and their smoothness indicate they are graphs of functions, not data. I have a disturbing feeling that the downvoters in this thread simply don't know what it means to validate a mathematical model with data. BTW It's not a criticism of the field that it's not yet an engineering. It's just where it is at the moment.

blub 7y ago
A philosophical book of essays about software from 1975 is not relevant for a set of recommendations on architecture 44 years later. You are correct that chapter two lacks supporting evidence. And that's a problem for the book, it doesn't mean it's ok to omit data everywhere now.
- eitland 7y ago
  I seems to me that you and hyperpallium agree. I still hold that 1.) That book is still one of the most relevant books I've seen lately (which might be scaring, I haven't made up my mind yet) 2.) While he might not have (or at least not include) data, he argues hos case well, and while I wouldn't bet money on experiments to follow his smooth curve I would be willing to bet (a small amount of) money that for non-trivial software his ideas would still result in better estimates than one that accepts "man-months" as a unit of progress. And for those that haven't read the book yet it might be worth noting that while some people might find the book quotable more or less from cover to cover there is also a number of observations to be made that takes a full reading to realize. Here is one I'd like to point out: Some quotes from the book might leave one thinking that he says programming cannot be scaled. I'd say the opposite is true, he just argues that it must be done in a thoughtful way instead of by mindlessly adding people to the project.
  - hyperpallium 7y ago
    Let's be clear: I think (i) the book is great and (ii) your rude and inaccurate comment was not. (i) I said: > It's still great though (ii) I said: > lacks data You replied: > It is the computer book with most tables pr page of any I have seen. > How you come to this conclusion is beyond me. In case you were wondering, this is the part where you apologize handsomely.
    - eitland 7y ago
      Can you explain what is rude? I am not a native speaker so I just looked up the phrase you seem to point to and the two first definitions says it means: - Very difficult for one to comprehend or do. - not something that I can understand Am I missing something here? Besides, I feel you moved the goal posts early on. I replied to you talking about the whole book, you replied with a single example. Please let me know if I've missed something.
      - hyperpallium 7y ago
        Can you cite one table of data from the book? It's the implication my conclusion was foolish; but if you intended no insult, that's good enough for me.
  - blub 7y ago
    I don't have an opinion on the book, I read it too long ago and just skimmed chapter 2 now. I don't think it's comparable with or relevant for this blog post. hyperpallium's original message, the one that started this thread is a feeble attempt at legitimizing the blog post by comparing it to a bunch of unrelated and generally appreciated things.
- JeffGrigg 7y ago
  I think it's quite clear from context that all graphs in Mythical Man Month are based on formulas and theory, not on double-blind experiments or empirical measurements. Still, I often find it quite useful advice even for today's projects, where people commonly assume that they can put a late project back on track by adding people to it, and that by doubling the staff, the product will be produced twice as fast.

blub 7y ago

A philosophical book of essays about software from 1975 is not relevant for a set of recommendations on architecture 44 years later. You are correct that chapter two lacks supporting evidence. And that's a problem for the book, it doesn't mean it's ok to omit data everywhere now.

eitland 7y ago
I seems to me that you and hyperpallium agree. I still hold that 1.) That book is still one of the most relevant books I've seen lately (which might be scaring, I haven't made up my mind yet) 2.) While he might not have (or at least not include) data, he argues hos case well, and while I wouldn't bet money on experiments to follow his smooth curve I would be willing to bet (a small amount of) money that for non-trivial software his ideas would still result in better estimates than one that accepts "man-months" as a unit of progress. And for those that haven't read the book yet it might be worth noting that while some people might find the book quotable more or less from cover to cover there is also a number of observations to be made that takes a full reading to realize. Here is one I'd like to point out: Some quotes from the book might leave one thinking that he says programming cannot be scaled. I'd say the opposite is true, he just argues that it must be done in a thoughtful way instead of by mindlessly adding people to the project.
- hyperpallium 7y ago
  Let's be clear: I think (i) the book is great and (ii) your rude and inaccurate comment was not. (i) I said: > It's still great though (ii) I said: > lacks data You replied: > It is the computer book with most tables pr page of any I have seen. > How you come to this conclusion is beyond me. In case you were wondering, this is the part where you apologize handsomely.
  - eitland 7y ago
    Can you explain what is rude? I am not a native speaker so I just looked up the phrase you seem to point to and the two first definitions says it means: - Very difficult for one to comprehend or do. - not something that I can understand Am I missing something here? Besides, I feel you moved the goal posts early on. I replied to you talking about the whole book, you replied with a single example. Please let me know if I've missed something.
    - hyperpallium 7y ago
      Can you cite one table of data from the book? It's the implication my conclusion was foolish; but if you intended no insult, that's good enough for me.
- blub 7y ago
  I don't have an opinion on the book, I read it too long ago and just skimmed chapter 2 now. I don't think it's comparable with or relevant for this blog post. hyperpallium's original message, the one that started this thread is a feeble attempt at legitimizing the blog post by comparing it to a bunch of unrelated and generally appreciated things.
JeffGrigg 7y ago
I think it's quite clear from context that all graphs in Mythical Man Month are based on formulas and theory, not on double-blind experiments or empirical measurements. Still, I often find it quite useful advice even for today's projects, where people commonly assume that they can put a late project back on track by adding people to it, and that by doubling the staff, the product will be produced twice as fast.