__/ [ BearItAll ] on Monday 09 October 2006 13:28 \__
> Peter Hayes wrote:
>
>> Surely switching staff around like that isn't very efficient. They won't
>> be up to speed on their new project, or is the code so compartmentalised
>> that they can work on one snippet without understanding the context?
>>
>> -
>
> That is how MS do it, or at least they did up to maybe two years ago (last
> time I was in touch with a mate who worked for them). Individuals and small
> teams get a tiny amount to write, not necessarily told what the end product
> is.
>
> That can work if the pieces are very self contained, for example if the
> programmer did the serial comms classes or the human interface or some
> other self contained area. But the pieces can apparently be much smaller
> than that.
>
> It is only to stop programmers being able to do naughty things, which is
> understandable, but it also means that it can be very ineficient in both
> bloat and functionally. Programmers adding something to a class or function
> of their own because they are unaware that in the same module when finished
> that little function will available.
>
> The module approach I think is better when the job is large enough to split
> for teams or individuals. Not necesarily self contained parts, but
> modualized such that they is clear distinction between the parts, like lego
> bricks.
...And all that unlike, for example, Open Source projects that are jointly
combined to form a complex system of interchangeable parts, e.g. embed Xorg
in BSD or Linux, use GNOME or KDE, LILO or GRUB...
Protocols and modularity are the key to maintaining complex systems. The days
of a small and monolithic Windows 1.0 are long gone, so it's time to
compromise old strategies. *smile*
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Free 3-D Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/6 Sun Oct 8 21:08 - 21:17 (00:09)
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
