>Did the original developers
>know what they had? I don't think so. I think they found out by accident.

I think that is too bold a statement...
I believe a small core group at Remedy had their vision straight, and new
the end game of this product. However, you need to start somewhere,
marketing wise. So they targeted the help desk market first...

But I agree with you that many many people at Remedy itself (specially the
sales force, way too focused on selling Remedy applications licenses) didn't
really understand the vision up until recently, thanks to BMC efforts on
making people understand what Remedy is all about

Guillaume

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank, Gordon M. [mailto:Gordon.Frank@JHUAPL.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 02:54
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


I consider the Remedy ARS toolset a 4.5GL. In the traditional sense, it is
not a 5GL because to me a 5GL implies some Artificial Intelligence
mechanism.

One person I work with described Remedy ARS with this analogy. In the past
automobile manufacturers put "lug nuts" on cars by hand. As automation came
around, "lug nuts" were now put on by robots. I view Remedy ARS as a robot.
It allows a developer to do more because he doesn't have to worry about the
primitive operations of putting on a "lug nut" or fighting with a 3GL or
4GLs syntax. I always thought this was an excellent analogy.

One of the reasons I feel Remedy ARS is a 4.5GL, is closes the options to
choose from. If the operation is on the Client, it's probably an Active
Link. If the operation is on the Server, it's probably a Filter. This binary
decision makes development constrained and therefore forces programmers not
try fancy methods. I believe one of the problems of things like PowerBuilder
and other 4GLs, is that you can "object" everything. Remedy ARS stops this,
because you only can do it one way or the other.

It also forces reuse. Because Active Links and Filters are the only items
available (Escalations are timed Filters in from my point of view),
developers concentrate on reusing object on several applications.

Mr. Dijkstra (God rest his soul) would have loved Remedy ARS. Dijkstra
talked about "D-Structures". "D-Stuctures" are the basics of "Structured
Programming" and "Control Structures." A definite beginning and a definite
ending (Begin/End).

Isn't Remedy ARS the perfect "D-Structure?"

If an object needs work, Disable it! Testing and integrating new objects is
very easy with the Remedy ARS system.

Now ask me if the management knew or know what they had done! Remedy ARS was
traditionally a "Help Desk" oriented product. Did the original developers
know what they had? I don't think so. I think they found out by accident.
Recently they have been selling Remedy ARS as a development or workflow
toolkit. I think BMC may be helping with this viewpoint.

That's my two cents,
Gordon M. Frank
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Cook [mailto:rcook@DENALIAI.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:52 PM
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


Sounds like we've found our author! Though some good points have been made
by all, I do agree that programming in Remedy isn't all that hard to do at a
low or even mediocre level. Doing it really well does take some skill and
smarts, but it isn't brain surgery.

I'd love to see the quantification of the work complexity that you talked
about. It would make for some interesting ROI discussions, both at an
architectural and project level; for instance, what true value is there in
being able to quantify the complexity of the work?

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Spaeth Jennifer Contractor HQ AFWA
[mailto:jennifer.spaeth@AFWA.AF.MIL]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:34 AM
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


LOL.

Calling Remedy development a dark art is like the AFL-CIO claiming that
machinists are a privileged group whose efforts cannot be duplicated because
of the exacting nature of their work tasks. What kind of mystery is that?
My grandmother could code in Remedy. (May she rest in peace.) It's a
skill, not a God-given talent.

We're a CMM level 3 organization. We are creating a quantities measure of
our productivity using well-defined industry standards, not some qualitative
seat-of your pants, Ouija-board system of software development.

If T.J. McCabe could write a book about software complexity measurement in
1976, (see Brad Bingel's post earlier in this thread) surely we can do at
least as well 25 years later, regardless of the language.

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Holdsworth [mailto:daniel.r.holdsworth@MAN.AC.UK]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:02
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


Aaron Keller wrote:
> No offense to those that have tried, but I personally don't think it
> feasible to define one's development based on an objective, mathematical
> computation such as Logical Lines of Code. And not because I think the
> ARSystem is a 3GL, 4GL, or 4.53687GL. There is just too much subjectivity
> to ARSystem development. Don't get me wrong, I like Math. But I can
develop
> a solution using many workflow objects, or few. And my approach can
dictate
> the complexity of the workflow.
>
> For example, I could create several character menus for an application, or
I
> could create search menus, and store the menu data in a form. I could
> create one large form with multiple fields and functions, or several forms
> with workflow that push data between them. As a more real example, look
at
> how the HelpDesk application handles automatic assignment - there are
> multiple forms and a passel of links and filters involved. But most of us
> can look at that and come up with what we consider a "better" way, with
> fewer, less complicated workflow.

In other words, it is quite possible to vary the difficulty of a task
simply by varying how you go about doing it. My background as a Perl
programmer reflects this; I have encountered good and bad coding styles,
but the ones that stick in my mind are the fantastically-complicated
object-orientation addict styles.

If you assess these sorts of styles of coding, then by the methods
described, the coders would come out looking like Perl geniuses.

If you try reviewing the code by some form of peer review, a very
different opinion would become apparent; the overly-complicated code
would universally be considered vile and horrible to maintain.

> So when attempting to define how well a developer or team is doing, I
think
> you have to look at subjective means, such as how well they define
> requirements, or functional specifications. Or look at development time,
or
> satisfaction. (Someone came up with the requirements, so how well are they
> satisfied with the result?) How many "redo's"? How many milestones or
> deadlines do they miss, etc.

The best way to do it is with some form of peer review. Nothing else
even comes close to being useful; deadlines missed can indicate poor
developers, OR it can indicate poor management, or merely an especially
nasty problem.

Mathematics doesn't come close to measuring that. Peer review isn't so
hot either, but it is probably the least worst option.


--
Dr Dan Holdsworth
Remedy ARS Administrator, Manchester Computing
daniel.r.holdsworth@man.ac.uk
0161 275 0606



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com

I consider the Remedy ARS toolset a 4.5GL. In the traditional sense, it is
not a 5GL because to me a 5GL implies some Artificial Intelligence
mechanism.

One person I work with described Remedy ARS with this analogy. In the past
automobile manufacturers put "lug nuts" on cars by hand. As automation came
around, "lug nuts" were now put on by robots. I view Remedy ARS as a robot.
It allows a developer to do more because he doesn't have to worry about the
primitive operations of putting on a "lug nut" or fighting with a 3GL or
4GLs syntax. I always thought this was an excellent analogy.

One of the reasons I feel Remedy ARS is a 4.5GL, is closes the options to
choose from. If the operation is on the Client, it's probably an Active
Link. If the operation is on the Server, it's probably a Filter. This binary
decision makes development constrained and therefore forces programmers not
try fancy methods. I believe one of the problems of things like PowerBuilder
and other 4GLs, is that you can "object" everything. Remedy ARS stops this,
because you only can do it one way or the other.

It also forces reuse. Because Active Links and Filters are the only items
available (Escalations are timed Filters in from my point of view),
developers concentrate on reusing object on several applications.

Mr. Dijkstra (God rest his soul) would have loved Remedy ARS. Dijkstra
talked about "D-Structures". "D-Stuctures" are the basics of "Structured
Programming" and "Control Structures." A definite beginning and a definite
ending (Begin/End).

Isn't Remedy ARS the perfect "D-Structure?"

If an object needs work, Disable it! Testing and integrating new objects is
very easy with the Remedy ARS system.

Now ask me if the management knew or know what they had done! Remedy ARS was
traditionally a "Help Desk" oriented product. Did the original developers
know what they had? I don't think so. I think they found out by accident.
Recently they have been selling Remedy ARS as a development or workflow
toolkit. I think BMC may be helping with this viewpoint.

That's my two cents,
Gordon M. Frank
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Cook [mailto:rcook@DENALIAI.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:52 PM
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


Sounds like we've found our author! Though some good points have been made
by all, I do agree that programming in Remedy isn't all that hard to do at a
low or even mediocre level. Doing it really well does take some skill and
smarts, but it isn't brain surgery.

I'd love to see the quantification of the work complexity that you talked
about. It would make for some interesting ROI discussions, both at an
architectural and project level; for instance, what true value is there in
being able to quantify the complexity of the work?

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Spaeth Jennifer Contractor HQ AFWA
[mailto:jennifer.spaeth@AFWA.AF.MIL]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:34 AM
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


LOL.

Calling Remedy development a dark art is like the AFL-CIO claiming that
machinists are a privileged group whose efforts cannot be duplicated because
of the exacting nature of their work tasks. What kind of mystery is that?
My grandmother could code in Remedy. (May she rest in peace.) It's a
skill, not a God-given talent.

We're a CMM level 3 organization. We are creating a quantities measure of
our productivity using well-defined industry standards, not some qualitative
seat-of your pants, Ouija-board system of software development.

If T.J. McCabe could write a book about software complexity measurement in
1976, (see Brad Bingel's post earlier in this thread) surely we can do at
least as well 25 years later, regardless of the language.

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Holdsworth [mailto:daniel.r.holdsworth@MAN.AC.UK]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:02
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


Aaron Keller wrote:
> No offense to those that have tried, but I personally don't think it
> feasible to define one's development based on an objective, mathematical
> computation such as Logical Lines of Code. And not because I think the
> ARSystem is a 3GL, 4GL, or 4.53687GL. There is just too much subjectivity
> to ARSystem development. Don't get me wrong, I like Math. But I can
develop
> a solution using many workflow objects, or few. And my approach can
dictate
> the complexity of the workflow.
>
> For example, I could create several character menus for an application, or
I
> could create search menus, and store the menu data in a form. I could
> create one large form with multiple fields and functions, or several forms
> with workflow that push data between them. As a more real example, look
at
> how the HelpDesk application handles automatic assignment - there are
> multiple forms and a passel of links and filters involved. But most of us
> can look at that and come up with what we consider a "better" way, with
> fewer, less complicated workflow.

In other words, it is quite possible to vary the difficulty of a task
simply by varying how you go about doing it. My background as a Perl
programmer reflects this; I have encountered good and bad coding styles,
but the ones that stick in my mind are the fantastically-complicated
object-orientation addict styles.

If you assess these sorts of styles of coding, then by the methods
described, the coders would come out looking like Perl geniuses.

If you try reviewing the code by some form of peer review, a very
different opinion would become apparent; the overly-complicated code
would universally be considered vile and horrible to maintain.

> So when attempting to define how well a developer or team is doing, I
think
> you have to look at subjective means, such as how well they define
> requirements, or functional specifications. Or look at development time,
or
> satisfaction. (Someone came up with the requirements, so how well are they
> satisfied with the result?) How many "redo's"? How many milestones or
> deadlines do they miss, etc.

The best way to do it is with some form of peer review. Nothing else
even comes close to being useful; deadlines missed can indicate poor
developers, OR it can indicate poor management, or merely an especially
nasty problem.

Mathematics doesn't come close to measuring that. Peer review isn't so
hot either, but it is probably the least worst option.


--
Dr Dan Holdsworth
Remedy ARS Administrator, Manchester Computing
daniel.r.holdsworth@man.ac.uk
0161 275 0606



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com

An excellent analogy Rick. Never thought of it that way.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Cook [mailto:rcook@DENALIAI.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:32 PM
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


Though I think that Doug, et al, did to at least some degree know what they
had early on, applications are sold more because although techies like us
can see the value in a development platform, the people that write the
checks need (most of the time) to see something they can understand before
they'll approve the money. It also looks good to be able to say that your
company (meaning Remedy) has some product features that can be benchmarked
against competitors.

Sort of like Pilsbury selling flour to those who wish to bake their own
cakes from scratch, and cake mixes to those who lack the skill or the
inclination to make from scratch. Both are valuable to different market
segments and therefore increase profitability.

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Guillaume.Rheault [mailto:Guillaume.Rheault@TARGET.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:13 PM
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


>Did the original developers
>know what they had? I don't think so. I think they found out by accident.

I think that is too bold a statement...
I believe a small core group at Remedy had their vision straight, and new
the end game of this product. However, you need to start somewhere,
marketing wise. So they targeted the help desk market first...

But I agree with you that many many people at Remedy itself (specially the
sales force, way too focused on selling Remedy applications licenses) didn't
really understand the vision up until recently, thanks to BMC efforts on
making people understand what Remedy is all about

Guillaume

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank, Gordon M. [mailto:Gordon.Frank@JHUAPL.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 02:54
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


I consider the Remedy ARS toolset a 4.5GL. In the traditional sense, it is
not a 5GL because to me a 5GL implies some Artificial Intelligence
mechanism.

One person I work with described Remedy ARS with this analogy. In the past
automobile manufacturers put "lug nuts" on cars by hand. As automation came
around, "lug nuts" were now put on by robots. I view Remedy ARS as a robot.
It allows a developer to do more because he doesn't have to worry about the
primitive operations of putting on a "lug nut" or fighting with a 3GL or
4GLs syntax. I always thought this was an excellent analogy.

One of the reasons I feel Remedy ARS is a 4.5GL, is closes the options to
choose from. If the operation is on the Client, it's probably an Active
Link. If the operation is on the Server, it's probably a Filter. This binary
decision makes development constrained and therefore forces programmers not
try fancy methods. I believe one of the problems of things like PowerBuilder
and other 4GLs, is that you can "object" everything. Remedy ARS stops this,
because you only can do it one way or the other.

It also forces reuse. Because Active Links and Filters are the only items
available (Escalations are timed Filters in from my point of view),
developers concentrate on reusing object on several applications.

Mr. Dijkstra (God rest his soul) would have loved Remedy ARS. Dijkstra
talked about "D-Structures". "D-Stuctures" are the basics of "Structured
Programming" and "Control Structures." A definite beginning and a definite
ending (Begin/End).

Isn't Remedy ARS the perfect "D-Structure?"

If an object needs work, Disable it! Testing and integrating new objects is
very easy with the Remedy ARS system.

Now ask me if the management knew or know what they had done! Remedy ARS was
traditionally a "Help Desk" oriented product. Did the original developers
know what they had? I don't think so. I think they found out by accident.
Recently they have been selling Remedy ARS as a development or workflow
toolkit. I think BMC may be helping with this viewpoint.

That's my two cents,
Gordon M. Frank
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Cook [mailto:rcook@DENALIAI.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:52 PM
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


Sounds like we've found our author! Though some good points have been made
by all, I do agree that programming in Remedy isn't all that hard to do at a
low or even mediocre level. Doing it really well does take some skill and
smarts, but it isn't brain surgery.

I'd love to see the quantification of the work complexity that you talked
about. It would make for some interesting ROI discussions, both at an
architectural and project level; for instance, what true value is there in
being able to quantify the complexity of the work?

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Spaeth Jennifer Contractor HQ AFWA
[mailto:jennifer.spaeth@AFWA.AF.MIL]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:34 AM
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


LOL.

Calling Remedy development a dark art is like the AFL-CIO claiming that
machinists are a privileged group whose efforts cannot be duplicated because
of the exacting nature of their work tasks. What kind of mystery is that?
My grandmother could code in Remedy. (May she rest in peace.) It's a
skill, not a God-given talent.

We're a CMM level 3 organization. We are creating a quantities measure of
our productivity using well-defined industry standards, not some qualitative
seat-of your pants, Ouija-board system of software development.

If T.J. McCabe could write a book about software complexity measurement in
1976, (see Brad Bingel's post earlier in this thread) surely we can do at
least as well 25 years later, regardless of the language.

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Holdsworth [mailto:daniel.r.holdsworth@MAN.AC.UK]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:02
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


Aaron Keller wrote:
> No offense to those that have tried, but I personally don't think it
> feasible to define one's development based on an objective, mathematical
> computation such as Logical Lines of Code. And not because I think the
> ARSystem is a 3GL, 4GL, or 4.53687GL. There is just too much subjectivity
> to ARSystem development. Don't get me wrong, I like Math. But I can
develop
> a solution using many workflow objects, or few. And my approach can
dictate
> the complexity of the workflow.
>
> For example, I could create several character menus for an application, or
I
> could create search menus, and store the menu data in a form. I could
> create one large form with multiple fields and functions, or several forms
> with workflow that push data between them. As a more real example, look
at
> how the HelpDesk application handles automatic assignment - there are
> multiple forms and a passel of links and filters involved. But most of us
> can look at that and come up with what we consider a "better" way, with
> fewer, less complicated workflow.

In other words, it is quite possible to vary the difficulty of a task
simply by varying how you go about doing it. My background as a Perl
programmer reflects this; I have encountered good and bad coding styles,
but the ones that stick in my mind are the fantastically-complicated
object-orientation addict styles.

If you assess these sorts of styles of coding, then by the methods
described, the coders would come out looking like Perl geniuses.

If you try reviewing the code by some form of peer review, a very
different opinion would become apparent; the overly-complicated code
would universally be considered vile and horrible to maintain.

> So when attempting to define how well a developer or team is doing, I
think
> you have to look at subjective means, such as how well they define
> requirements, or functional specifications. Or look at development time,
or
> satisfaction. (Someone came up with the requirements, so how well are they
> satisfied with the result?) How many "redo's"? How many milestones or
> deadlines do they miss, etc.

The best way to do it is with some form of peer review. Nothing else
even comes close to being useful; deadlines missed can indicate poor
developers, OR it can indicate poor management, or merely an especially
nasty problem.

Mathematics doesn't come close to measuring that. Peer review isn't so
hot either, but it is probably the least worst option.


--
Dr Dan Holdsworth
Remedy ARS Administrator, Manchester Computing
daniel.r.holdsworth@man.ac.uk
0161 275 0606



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com


*****
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
computers."

Well you certainly put me in my place with that widely applicable analogy.
But while I'm off reconsidering my career choices, consider that not
everything in life, or computers, can be accurately broken down into a
confluence of numbers.

You asked if anyone has attempted to gather metrics on Remedy development,
and I simply said I didn't think that was feasible. Feel free to use
whatever method you like, and label others' methods however you like.



-----Original Message-----
From: Spaeth Jennifer Contractor HQ AFWA
[mailto:jennifer.spaeth@AFWA.AF.MIL]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:34 PM
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


LOL.

Calling Remedy development a dark art is like the AFL-CIO claiming that
machinists are a privileged group whose efforts cannot be duplicated because
of the exacting nature of their work tasks. What kind of mystery is that?
My grandmother could code in Remedy. (May she rest in peace.) It's a
skill, not a God-given talent.

We're a CMM level 3 organization. We are creating a quantities measure of
our productivity using well-defined industry standards, not some qualitative
seat-of your pants, Ouija-board system of software development.

If T.J. McCabe could write a book about software complexity measurement in
1976, (see Brad Bingel's post earlier in this thread) surely we can do at
least as well 25 years later, regardless of the language.

Jennifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Holdsworth [mailto:daniel.r.holdsworth@MAN.AC.UK]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:02
To: ARSLIST@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Remedy Vs VB/Oracle Forms


Aaron Keller wrote:
> No offense to those that have tried, but I personally don't think it
> feasible to define one's development based on an objective, mathematical
> computation such as Logical Lines of Code. And not because I think the
> ARSystem is a 3GL, 4GL, or 4.53687GL. There is just too much subjectivity
> to ARSystem development. Don't get me wrong, I like Math. But I can
develop
> a solution using many workflow objects, or few. And my approach can
dictate
> the complexity of the workflow.
>
> For example, I could create several character menus for an application, or
I
> could create search menus, and store the menu data in a form. I could
> create one large form with multiple fields and functions, or several forms
> with workflow that push data between them. As a more real example, look
at
> how the HelpDesk application handles automatic assignment - there are
> multiple forms and a passel of links and filters involved. But most of us
> can look at that and come up with what we consider a "better" way, with
> fewer, less complicated workflow.

In other words, it is quite possible to vary the difficulty of a task
simply by varying how you go about doing it. My background as a Perl
programmer reflects this; I have encountered good and bad coding styles,
but the ones that stick in my mind are the fantastically-complicated
object-orientation addict styles.

If you assess these sorts of styles of coding, then by the methods
described, the coders would come out looking like Perl geniuses.

If you try reviewing the code by some form of peer review, a very
different opinion would become apparent; the overly-complicated code
would universally be considered vile and horrible to maintain.

> So when attempting to define how well a developer or team is doing, I
think
> you have to look at subjective means, such as how well they define
> requirements, or functional specifications. Or look at development time,
or
> satisfaction. (Someone came up with the requirements, so how well are they
> satisfied with the result?) How many "redo's"? How many milestones or
> deadlines do they miss, etc.

The best way to do it is with some form of peer review. Nothing else
even comes close to being useful; deadlines missed can indicate poor
developers, OR it can indicate poor management, or merely an especially
nasty problem.

Mathematics doesn't come close to measuring that. Peer review isn't so
hot either, but it is probably the least worst option.


--
Dr Dan Holdsworth
Remedy ARS Administrator, Manchester Computing
daniel.r.holdsworth@man.ac.uk
0161 275 0606



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com



UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSList Archives at http://www.ARSLIST.org (Support:
mailto:support@arslist.org ) ARSList is hosted by QMX SUPPORT SERVICES at
www.QMXS.com