[plt-scheme] Perplexed Programmers

Richard Cleis wrote:
> I am not sure that stupid applies here.  Expensive failures start 'at  
> the top.'  If the programmers are stupid, then that problem should  have 
> been addressed in the first few mil of the project.  

Agreed.

> My interest  in 
> this story is the fact that I know of two more like it (well, not  as 
> expensive as this one) in three parts of the country.  They make  me 
> wonder if business accepts software development as a flaky  activity.  

That's an easy one.  Yes.

> I don't argue that the problem is easy.  I *do* argue that 95M$ ought  
> to cover it... if modern program development is mature enough and  
> managers actually respect it.  

I touched on this towards the end of my original message.  The 
*management* of software development in corporate IT is not particularly 
mature, in general.

A test I like to do, casually, is ask managers involved with software 
projects whether they've heard of "The Mythical Man Month".  You'd be 
surprised how many haven't.

In fact, the common way of justifying problems by, as you say, accepting 
development as a "flaky activity" is not a good sign -- it indicates 
lack of understanding of the activity, and often a lack of 
acknowledgement of the problems with the broader context that I described.

> That's what I'm trying to ascertain.   
> Everything that I do affects only a few dozen people.  I can't  imagine 
> working on something that can so naturally enrage/disappoint  many 
> thousands.

If you were responsible for such a project, you might want $95m for it 
too...

Anton