Comments on: The Zombie Horde vs. A Posse of Cowboys http://blog.markturansky.com/archives/123 software architecture & engineering, code hints, sometimes philosophy, photography, life, etc. Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:09:58 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Mark Turansky http://blog.markturansky.com/archives/123/comment-page-1#comment-963 Mark Turansky Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:49:41 +0000 http://blog.markturansky.com/archives/123#comment-963 "You also missed the words “The people here are just of the highest caliber” which blows your point about “Superstars” out of the water. The 260 employees in that company are probably among the best software engineers in the *world*." But if they are the best in the world and they choose to follow a Big M process, why would the average developer choose cowboy methods when the best of us choose otherwise? Big M process would, in that case, protect the average developer from himself. “You also missed the words “The people here are just of the highest caliber” which blows your point about “Superstars” out of the water. The 260 employees in that company are probably among the best software engineers in the *world*.”

But if they are the best in the world and they choose to follow a Big M process, why would the average developer choose cowboy methods when the best of us choose otherwise? Big M process would, in that case, protect the average developer from himself.

]]> By: Tom http://blog.markturansky.com/archives/123/comment-page-1#comment-962 Tom Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:21:29 +0000 http://blog.markturansky.com/archives/123#comment-962 I posted a response to this on the Coding Horror website, just under Mike's comment. His reading leaves out a key point when it comes to the "zombification" question, which is the clear respect the team members have for each other, and the fact that they are still allowing creativity, but at the process level, not the code level. You also missed the words "The people here are just of the highest caliber" which blows your point about "Superstars" out of the water. The 260 employees in that company are probably among the best software engineers in the *world*. A vital point is also skimmed over right at the end. Space Shuttle and Nuclear Power software products are like no other software in the world, in that the If all 60 million Microsoft end users were willing to pay Microsoft $350 million for Windows 7 to never crash, I'm pretty sure Windows 7 would never crash, especially if it only had to do one thing and was only used by highly-trained end users. And if when it crashed, people died. To summarize, your example won't apply to 99% of software products, and Jeff's point about having respect for the abilities of your employees still applies. Thank you however, for pointing me to a fascinating article. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html Oh, and incidentally, there is no evidence that reducing costs increases demand. Reducing price *might*, but you then have to prove it will increase the demand to cover the loss in profit per item. And if you're making Space Shuttle software, it won't increase demand at all. I posted a response to this on the Coding Horror website, just under Mike’s comment.
His reading leaves out a key point when it comes to the “zombification” question, which is the clear respect the team members have for each other, and the fact that they are still allowing creativity, but at the process level, not the code level.
You also missed the words “The people here are just of the highest caliber” which blows your point about “Superstars” out of the water. The 260 employees in that company are probably among the best software engineers in the *world*.
A vital point is also skimmed over right at the end. Space Shuttle and Nuclear Power software products are like no other software in the world, in that the
If all 60 million Microsoft end users were willing to pay Microsoft $350 million for Windows 7 to never crash, I’m pretty sure Windows 7 would never crash, especially if it only had to do one thing and was only used by highly-trained end users. And if when it crashed, people died.

To summarize, your example won’t apply to 99% of software products, and Jeff’s point about having respect for the abilities of your employees still applies. Thank you however, for pointing me to a fascinating article.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html

Oh, and incidentally, there is no evidence that reducing costs increases demand. Reducing price *might*, but you then have to prove it will increase the demand to cover the loss in profit per item. And if you’re making Space Shuttle software, it won’t increase demand at all.

]]>