From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <6395dbad6ef42a267fe14fd5b5384ffc@9netics.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this
Date: Tue,  5 Jun 2007 12:46:35 -0700
From: Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com>
In-Reply-To: <39199ecd37572d377d8726c769bd07da@proxima.alt.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 79432dfe-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> http://www.joeyoder.com/papers/patterns/BBOM/mud.html

i offer my counter diatribe/extrapolation for peer review:

bbom should just be called "organic software" or "evolutionary
software".  unlike organic vegetables, it's not good for you.  like
vegetables, the force behind its evolution is not some grand design
with stated requirements like "its green leaves shall be nourishing to
humans" but competition for local resources to survive.

for shantytowns the inputs to the resource equation are: available
material within 500' of construction site, 1-2 weeks (before the rainy
season and after a hastily arranged marriage), work output of 2 people
and space available within 25' of where the person is standing.

for software industry, it is about survival of the software company.
it must beat the competitors to the market - software survives to
evolve if the company survives.  the parameters to the resource
equation are similar to shantytowns: 2-3 months (for a 6-9 month
release cycle), output of 1-2 developers within the part of the code
that they understand.

elegance and efficiency of software become major factors only if a
software malfunction can adversely affect the survival of the
company that produces it; which usually means it must cause loss
of life or property.