Subject: Re: Back to business [was: the Be thread]
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:19:44 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "Kirrily" == Kirrily 'Skud' Robert <skud+usenet@netizen.com.au> writes:

    Kirrily> The Cathedral and the Bazaar makes it clear that while
    Kirrily> development/coding follows Brooks law (ie adding more
    Kirrily> coders makes communications overheads greater), the same
    Kirrily> is not true for testing.

Some authorities[1] disagree, and with good reason.  Downstream
(post-release) testing and fixing is an order of magnitude more
expensive than upstream review and testing.  It is possible to get the
users involved upstream (even in the design and specification stages),
but this requires precisely the fine modularization that Keith says
may be an inferior alternative in many applications.

Steve, can we reprint your editorial (and our response) on FSB?  Or
can you put it up on the Web or something?  Or is it already
available, maybe?


Footnotes: 
[1]  Steve McConnell, lead editorial "Open-Source Methodology: Ready
for Prime Time?," IEEE Software, July/August.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
What are those two straight lines for?  "Free software rules."