[HN Gopher] Evidence-Based Software Engineering based on publicl... ___________________________________________________________________ Evidence-Based Software Engineering based on publicly available data Author : teleforce Score : 106 points Date : 2021-05-24 16:43 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.knosof.co.uk) (TXT) w3m dump (www.knosof.co.uk) | gawi wrote: | I really like the cover where you can find illustrations of anti- | patterns such as stovepipes, gas factories, reinventing the | wheel, etc. | | Can you names the others? | harveywi wrote: | A cover when the document is digital. | swiley wrote: | I wish more stuff came with fun illustrations as canonical | "covers." Also the file looks like it's probably exactly what | they gave to the printers (the left and right margins are | different for odd/even pages.) | [deleted] | bckr wrote: | I'm glad this has been published. It would be tempting to delay | such a publication until more data is available. However, the | author(s?) are doing it in the way of honest science, and | hopefully this will catalyze further work on EBSE. Who knows, | maybe the big companies will decide that the rising tide effect | is worthwhile and fill in the gaps. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | I love the idea, and the honest assessment of the quality of the | available data. But good grief, cut to the chase already! This | reads like they felt they had to give a thorough discussion to | every possibly relevant tangential idea. | | I recommend skimming rather than straight-up reading. | neves wrote: | This well written book from O'Reilly covers the same subject: | https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/making-software/9780596... | | It is from 2010, I don't know if their is really new things on | the subject | lifeisstillgood wrote: | >>> based on an analysis of all the publicly available data This | aim is not as ambitious as it sounds, because there is not a | great deal of data publicly available. | | Amusing and revealing at the same time. Bet they did not take | long to agree on that senrence | ExcavateGrandMa wrote: | Ah! yes of course. | juskrey wrote: | Oh well, all of my 20 years of software engineering are a tale of | fighting in the dark before anything works and heavy precaution | after, without having any remote evidence of nearly everything | readily available. | moksly wrote: | That's the most interesting find of the book isn't it? | | We've taken a sort of controversial approach to software | development in the public sector of Denmark because we don't | have enough resources. Small projects are build to run their | own little lives with as little post-deployment development as | possible. Because of this they aren't build with best | practices, whatever theories are the right way to do things in | a current age, none of them are automatically tested because | their functionally is so small it's always going to be obvious | where the flaws are and the only way for them to get additional | development post deployment is if they turn out to be really | good, and even then, we don't expect them to live after 5-10 | years. | | It's way of development goes against every theory on software | development you'll find being taught at universities and | academies, I know, because I'm an external CS examiner at these | places, and we've really only chosen to do this because we have | 3 developers in an organisation with 10.000 employees. | | Now the data shows us, that we're actually better off doing the | wrong thing. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-24 23:00 UTC)