5 ms·

Related [1]: Wired: How has your thinking about design changed over the past decades? Brooks: When I first wrote The Mythical Man-Month in 1975, I cou

Related [1]: Wired: How has your thinking about design changed over the past decades? Brooks: When I first wrote The Mythical Man-Month in 1975, I counseled programmers to “throw the first version away,” then build a second one. By the 20th-anniversary edition, I realized that constant incremental iteration is a far sounder approach. You build a quick prototype and get it in front of users to see what they do with it. You will always be surprised. [1] http://www.wired.com/2010/07/ff_fred_brooks/ http://www.wired.com/2010/07/ff_fred_brooks/

orkoden 12y ago
This is true for application software you write. Standards work differently.
bostik 12y ago
I am not sure how well that applies to a protocol that is supposed to be codified in every single browser, web server and utility library in the world. The iteration cycle will be slow, and improvements can not happen overnight. Now, if the name was something like HTTP/1.8-alpha it might be a different thing. At least then it wouldn't carry the label of the "next big thing for everyone". It's sad, but names (and branding) do matter. Forcing a known-broken implementation upon the world is not exactly good engineering.
- twic 12y ago
  WebSockets went through a series of iteration cycles like this. It wasn't entirely smooth sailing, but it seems to have worked out.
- wmf 12y ago
  Google can iterate on SPDY and QUIC by just releasing new versions of Chrome, which is where all the knowledge behind HTTP 2.0 came from.
  - dsl 12y ago
    This is often overlooked as the single biggest failing of SPDY... its a protocol designed to work well for Google, which operates completely differently from every other web property. Google in-houses everything so a single fast multiplexed connection to a single server makes sense. Every other website has external content, ads, like buttons, etc. and you end up having to spin up 30-40 independent SPDY connections, eliminating all benefit.
aaron695 12y ago
I'm surprised that people still believe the Mythical Man-Month. As mentioned it was written almost 40 years ago. It was revolutionary at the time but people have moved on and found many improvements to the original and also outright mistakes. (As the author seems to have acknowledged when releasing a new improved iteration of his book.)
- adamlett 12y ago
  > I'm surprised that people still believe the Mythical Man-Month. As mentioned it was written almost 40 years ago. That hardly means that what it has to teach isn't still valid. Admittedly, I've only read a few chapters in it, but the central point that throwing more man power at a late project only serves to make it later, is at least as relevant today as when the book was first published. > It was revolutionary at the time but people have moved on and found many improvements to the original and also outright mistakes. Could you be more specific? > (As the author seems to have acknowledged when releasing a new improved iteration of his book.) So, do your points above refer only to the first edition of the book then?
  - aaron695 12y ago
    > throwing more man power at a late project only serves to make it later This is only part of the book. And as per this thread there's a lot more to the book . IE we are specifically talking about it's comments on prototyping which the original OP mentioned in their email. It's been years since I read it, but I'll toss in this review with their points -http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/882155551?book_show_action=true&page=1 http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/882155551?book_show_act... To me, to believe one persons opinionated book from 40 years ago as relevant today is just plain wrong. Even things like the way science was done back then is in questionable today. Systems they developed will be improved on, technology and societal change will make specifics no longer totally accurate and one person won't get an entire book right.
- jerf 12y ago
  The impressive thing about the Mythical Man-Month isn't that, 40 years later, it is accurate in every detail and utterly relevant to your life. The impressive thing is that 40 years later, it still has a substantial amount of stuff that is accurate and relevant to your life, and that 40 years later, people still get wrong what we knew was wrong 40 years ago. I would also accept an interpretation where that's an indictment on the field.
raverbashing 12y ago
This And I'm very afraid of the following phrase: "we found out that there are numerous hard problems that SPDY doesn't even get close to solving, and that we will need to make some simplifications in the evolved HTTP concept if we ever want to solve them." This usually means "ending up with a protocol that has a lot of corner cases and a lot of backward-compatible crap or maybe some half-baked stuff that was left because of some feature that nobody uses" I am very skeptic of protocols/standards that are born from a committee (take a look at telephony protocols/standards if you doubt me)
- chc 12y ago
  How does the word "simplifications" denote "corner cases and stuff that was left because of some feature nobody uses"? That's the opposite of how the message sounded to me. I thought it meant they would somehow jettison corner cases and pet features in order to reduce scope.

orkoden 12y ago

This is true for application software you write. Standards work differently.

bostik 12y ago

I am not sure how well that applies to a protocol that is supposed to be codified in every single browser, web server and utility library in the world. The iteration cycle will be slow, and improvements can not happen overnight. Now, if the name was something like HTTP/1.8-alpha it might be a different thing. At least then it wouldn't carry the label of the "next big thing for everyone". It's sad, but names (and branding) do matter. Forcing a known-broken implementation upon the world is not exactly good engineering.

twic 12y ago
WebSockets went through a series of iteration cycles like this. It wasn't entirely smooth sailing, but it seems to have worked out.
wmf 12y ago
Google can iterate on SPDY and QUIC by just releasing new versions of Chrome, which is where all the knowledge behind HTTP 2.0 came from.
- dsl 12y ago
  This is often overlooked as the single biggest failing of SPDY... its a protocol designed to work well for Google, which operates completely differently from every other web property. Google in-houses everything so a single fast multiplexed connection to a single server makes sense. Every other website has external content, ads, like buttons, etc. and you end up having to spin up 30-40 independent SPDY connections, eliminating all benefit.

aaron695 12y ago

I'm surprised that people still believe the Mythical Man-Month. As mentioned it was written almost 40 years ago. It was revolutionary at the time but people have moved on and found many improvements to the original and also outright mistakes. (As the author seems to have acknowledged when releasing a new improved iteration of his book.)

adamlett 12y ago
> I'm surprised that people still believe the Mythical Man-Month. As mentioned it was written almost 40 years ago. That hardly means that what it has to teach isn't still valid. Admittedly, I've only read a few chapters in it, but the central point that throwing more man power at a late project only serves to make it later, is at least as relevant today as when the book was first published. > It was revolutionary at the time but people have moved on and found many improvements to the original and also outright mistakes. Could you be more specific? > (As the author seems to have acknowledged when releasing a new improved iteration of his book.) So, do your points above refer only to the first edition of the book then?
- aaron695 12y ago
  > throwing more man power at a late project only serves to make it later This is only part of the book. And as per this thread there's a lot more to the book . IE we are specifically talking about it's comments on prototyping which the original OP mentioned in their email. It's been years since I read it, but I'll toss in this review with their points -http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/882155551?book_show_action=true&page=1 http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/882155551?book_show_act... To me, to believe one persons opinionated book from 40 years ago as relevant today is just plain wrong. Even things like the way science was done back then is in questionable today. Systems they developed will be improved on, technology and societal change will make specifics no longer totally accurate and one person won't get an entire book right.
jerf 12y ago
The impressive thing about the Mythical Man-Month isn't that, 40 years later, it is accurate in every detail and utterly relevant to your life. The impressive thing is that 40 years later, it still has a substantial amount of stuff that is accurate and relevant to your life, and that 40 years later, people still get wrong what we knew was wrong 40 years ago. I would also accept an interpretation where that's an indictment on the field.

raverbashing 12y ago

This And I'm very afraid of the following phrase: "we found out that there are numerous hard problems that SPDY doesn't even get close to solving, and that we will need to make some simplifications in the evolved HTTP concept if we ever want to solve them." This usually means "ending up with a protocol that has a lot of corner cases and a lot of backward-compatible crap or maybe some half-baked stuff that was left because of some feature that nobody uses" I am very skeptic of protocols/standards that are born from a committee (take a look at telephony protocols/standards if you doubt me)

chc 12y ago
How does the word "simplifications" denote "corner cases and stuff that was left because of some feature nobody uses"? That's the opposite of how the message sounded to me. I thought it meant they would somehow jettison corner cases and pet features in order to reduce scope.