2 ms·
> It is not making a silver bullet claim or denying the forecast originally present in No Silver Bullet. The paper's response to Brooks's central assumption,
by pron 7y ago
> It is not making a silver bullet claim or denying the forecast originally present in No Silver Bullet.
The paper's response to Brooks's central assumption, which leads to his prediction is, and I quote the full sentence, "We disagree."
It is an interesting opinion piece but it is entirely "Aristotelian".
> Because I'm not too aware of any tarpit inspired languages/development frameworks, let alone an actual FRP framework.
Different languages and frameworks have adopted different parts, usually the more practical ones. None proved to be a silver bullet.
- jcranberry 7y agoThe actual quote. >Following Brooks we distinguish accidental from essential diculty, but disagree with his premise that most complexity remaining in contemporary systems is essential There's no silver bullet claim.
- pron 7y agoIt very much is a silver bullet claim (following Brooks's definition). But here's the quote I was referring to, in context: > Brooks asserts ... that the majority... of the complexity that we find in contemporary large systems is of the essential type. We disagree. That means a silver bullet is possible (against Brooks's claim), and then they go on to describe what they think is a particular silver bullet.