5 ms·
The difference is that Frederick Brooks didn't say X is impossible to achieve since XXX attempts have been made that failed. He said that X is most likely not
by davorb 14y ago
The difference is that Frederick Brooks didn't say X is impossible to achieve since XXX attempts have been made that failed.
He said that X is most likely not possible because of Y (where Y is a function of X).
- erichocean 14y agoActually, he oversaw the worst-managed large-scale programming project in history, and instead of saying "I/we screwed up", he decided to write a book proclaiming that no one could have possibly succeeded, implying he was not to blame. A pretty stupid conclusion after exactly one attempt at large-scale programming, and IMO at least, it's set the industry back horribly. Everyone now just assumes we can't fly, and focuses on making horses run faster. </rant>
- chubot 14y agoI wasn't around then, but my understanding is that IBM OS/360 was hugely successful and its successors are still around like 40 years later. It took a huge amount of time, but was ultimately successful. I don't think you have the story quite right.
- elviejo 14y agoDo you care to go in to more detail?
- nateabele 14y agoWow. First of all, the guy wrote a book over 30 years ago that, 30 years later, is still one of the most relevant and truthful books in the industry. Secondly, I've met the guy, he's extremely humble. So not likely. Finally, you obviously haven't actually read any of his work, if you think he derives his experience from just one project.
- zurn 14y ago> he oversaw the worst-managed large-scale programming project in history Really? Have you been following news about gigantic failing IT projects lately? OS/360 shipped and later versions are currently running mission critical apps and making piles of money large enough to sustain a line of high perf custom CPUs and computers exclusively for running that OS.