cl@datlog.co.uk (Charles Lambert) (04/28/88)
In article <40335UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes on the subject "Who builds tools?": >Put in a broader perspective, maybe every project ought to have someone >who, while not being good at the techniques the final code will contain, >IS good with tools and tool building. In a similar vein, I believe that every project should have a "Boswell" (cf. Dr Johnson) whose job is to look over the team's collective shoulder and write down all those nuggets of expertise, revelation and folklore that eventually (in our imperfect profession) make the original team indispensable. Boswell's brief would be either i. to write the project documentation, or ii. to note everything that needs to go into the project documentation so that the team leader can chase the responsible parties. That documentation would include clear instructions for the use of the Toolsmith's creations AND an explanation of the underlying procedure, so that new recruits will not be crippled when the special tools fail. The measure of his or her success would be the ease with which new members could be brought up to speed and the lack of involvement by the development team after handing over to maintenance. Boswell's effort would have a profound effect on the integrity of the code, the consistency of the design and, hence, the cost of maintenance because the philosophy and foibles of the implementation - things which are usually either opaque or invisible to late recruits and maintainers - would be recorded. -------------- Charles Lambert
UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) (05/02/88)
In article <758@dlhpedg.co.uk>, cl@datlog.co.uk (Charles Lambert) says: > >In a similar vein, I believe that every project should have a "Boswell" >(cf. Dr Johnson) whose job is to look over the team's collective shoulder >and write down all those nuggets of expertise, revelation and folklore >that eventually (in our imperfect profession) make the original team >indispensable. Boswell's brief would be either > Brooks's "surgical team" approach provides for this, but not in the pattern you suggest. It is the Chief Programmer's job to oversee the documentation. A librarian/secretary/editor is on the team to relieve the workload. The "Boswell" (nice term) is the assstant to the Chief Programmer, and very few official duties, except to hang around the Chief Programmer, look over his or her shoulder, know everything the chief programmer knows, and be ready to step in at a moments notice if the CP gets hit by a truck. Brooks proposes that inexperienced but promising programmers would fill this role, sort of like a medical resident assisting in surgery. lee
fad@think.COM (franklin a davis) (05/03/88)
In article <41127UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes: > >Brooks's "surgical team" approach provides for this, but not in the pattern >you suggest. It is the Chief Programmer's job to oversee the documentation. >A librarian/secretary/editor is on the team to relieve the workload. > >The "Boswell" (nice term) is the assstant to the Chief Programmer, and >very few official duties, except to hang around the Chief Programmer, >look over his or her shoulder, know everything the chief programmer knows, >and be ready to step in at a moments notice if the CP gets hit by a truck. > There have been several recent references to Brooks' CP model. The main problem I see with it is that, realistically, few projects are lucky enough to find a "super-programmer" with the skills and talent to fill the role. --Franklin franklin a davis Thinking Machines Corp. Cambridge, MA 02142 617-876-1111 <fad@think.com> {ihnp4, harvard, seismo}!think!fad "Roll away...the dew!"
daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (05/05/88)
In article <20437@think.UUCP> fad@balder.think.com.UUCP (franklin a davis) writes: >There have been several recent references to Brooks' CP model. The >main problem I see with it is that, realistically, few projects are >lucky enough to find a "super-programmer" with the skills and talent >to fill the role. Well, its more like they lack the ability to attract them. I know at least four, all from my year at a single university. Mind you, at the time I met them, they weren't super yet, and therefore had little trouble getting jobs. Now that they're smarter than their bosses, things get harder... --dave (first-class people hire first-class people: second-class people hire third-class people. my director prefers the first kind) c-b -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) (05/07/88)
Brooks's Chief Programmer model does *not* require that the CP be a super- programmer. Only that there be someone who is responsible for being intimately familiar with every line of code that goes in the final product. To make this possible, the CP must be relieved of being familiar with code used for testing, tools, editing, and so on. Note that lots of super programmers would make poor CP's, because of a lack of ``people skills''. They might make great Boswells, and learn to be CP's someday. They probably would be best at the tool maker job, where the ability to throw together something new in a flash is important. This leads to interesting organizational problems--the tool smith, who ``supports'' the CP is likely to be more importatn than the CP, and could quite reasonable expect to be paid more.
jonson@unicom.UUCP (Mary D Johnson) (05/12/88)
In article <41891UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes:
. . . to paraphrase
the guru, boswell, expert (chose one) might be more valuable than the project
leader
at least that seems to be Lee's message (in my words)
It also seems to be the hardest thing to convince management that the
department or project manager might not be too upset to pay more than they
make themselves to get the services of someone who is really good.
How many coaches make more than their star pitchers, centers, or quarter
backs?UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) (05/14/88)
>How many coaches make more than their star pitchers, centers, or quarter >backs? You make our point for us. The Coach is the Chief Programmer. The star pitcher is his assistant.