4 ms·
No but it wasn't valid. It was a prediction. That was wrong. It had real counterexamples. You can't cite Twitter as a counter-counter example, because it's
by dnautics 5y ago
No but it wasn't valid. It was a prediction. That was wrong. It had real counterexamples.
You can't cite Twitter as a counter-counter example, because it's definitely not a "boring" problem domain (or, wasn't, in 2006).
If you're going to give a wrong prediction like that a pass, then what the heck is the point of the scientific method?
- bdcravens 5y agoThere were no large apps in Rails at the time Spolsky wrote this. Features that future big apps would use hadn't been written yet. Scientific method requires a theory and the ability to prove/disprove using measurable data.
- dnautics 5y agoYeah the theory is that if it's not boring you shouldn't use it. It was disproven. There's probably a better heuristic model out there that takes into account developer ergonomics, time to mvp, etc. And no, theories do not need measurable data. Qualitative results can be used to support theories (much of my hard science grad school work was basically a binary "can this happen"? That is not really a measurement in a meaningful sense unless you consider all observations measurements -- I do not).