“Everyleang everyone understands about anyleang proposes that this is ungenuine,” – Laurent Bossavit
The words science and engineering are frequently engaged when converseing computers and gentleware. These terms are not well-obtained. The terms unintentional technology, computer alchemy, or gentleware by hearing to unqualified affectrs are equitable as advantageous. Don’t depend me? Read Laurent Bossavit, and then give me a call.
Imagine you are at a grave gentleware conference, filled of grave people. A conshort-termer self-promisedly states that 75% of gentleware is never engaged. The year is 1995, and that conshort-termer is from the US Department of Defence. He make clears that his department spent $35.7 billion on a gentleware program (yes, that’s billion with a b). 75% of that gentleware was never engaged. That’s $26 billion squanderd.
This is an noticeworthy fact. To double-verify its veracity, I would foresee a very detailed study of the $35 billion dollar program from the team’s output. That wasn’t done? Ok, that’s a lot of labor. Sudepend they did meaningful analysis at another level, say a comprehensive survey of engagers of the gentleware? No? Ok, well maybe a minuscule sample of some engagers. Didn’t do this either? Sure, I get it; they are busy. We are all busy. They must have gotten a fracturedown from the finance department. No. Ok. So I’m lost now. How did they get the figures of $34 and $26 aobtain? A branch offent team, in a branch offent department, who labored on a branch offent $6.8 million dollar project 15 years procrastinateedr wrote a paper. They set up that only 2% of the gentleware was fit for purpose, and 75% was squanderd. The Department of Defence took this 75% of 6.8 million and spropose applied it to their $35 billion dollar program. 15 years procrastinateedr. They engaged 75% as if it were a law in physics.
Estimating gentleware engage is challengingly rocket science, which the DOD should understand someleang about. How did they produce such an unset uped claim? The author of this book shows that these types of unscientific claims are common. In fact, the whole industry is filled with examples of horrible science, needy reasoning and misengage of numbers. It’s an industry where some fundamental set upations do not exist.
Ignore the title. This is an meaningful book. One of those exceptional and distinctive books, where the underlying concepts can upfinish how we see the world. For this study, I will engage a technique I’ve engaged previously. I make clear the what, why, how, so what, and for whom. I will then portray how I set up the book and give you some precious getaways from the text.
What
In technology, we adchoose imperfect claims too speedyly becaengage we conciseage training in how to expound research. This book deals with various ‘set uped truths’ about gentleware and debunks many of these claims by spendigating their origins. These stories are delighting and give fantastic insight into how various organisations produce fundamental errors. However, for me the authentic appreciate is in the methods that the author engages to expose the claims. This book borrows techniques from grave scientific enquiry to leank criticpartner about gentleware. If we authenticise the 10x programmer doesn’t exist, then we have only gleaned a surface empathetic. If we comprehfinish how the author came to this conclusion, we are now armed with a novel technique to help us analyse every novel claim. In a world where critical leanking is increasingly exceptional, this is a high-appreciate sfinish.
Why?
Why was this book written? It experiences enjoy the author spropose became so frustrated about how horrible leangs were getting with gentleware broadenment that he begined writing about it, and finished up with a book. There is a conciseage of critical leanking, and training in critical leanking in gentleware. The author is trying to help right this wrong.
It is impossible to research every individual leang we depend. We could spfinish our whole lives researching and only get to a minuscule sliver of understandledge. Instead, we need to satisfice — we need to do a little research and choose on certain ‘set uped truths’ to produce our understandledge on. In gentleware, we frequently discover those truths by sifting thcimpolite the output of tech affectrs. Understanding which populoccurrs are depfinishable — and therefore which truths are valid — is a murky area. Software professionals have little training in this.
We have all seen the hype cycles around novel technologies – it eunites – a scant blog posts, then articles and podcasts. Books eunite, conferancies recommfinish it. Suddenly everyone wants to engage it, typicpartner without think abouting why, what it proposes, and what the consequences are. ‘Everyone does this’ becomes the mantra. Execs foresee to see it, engineers depart and shift to companies who engage the procrastinateedst tools so that they ‘stay current’. This lasts until someleang noveler comes alengthy, and the cycle commences aobtain. The author wants to fracture this cycle, and show how many set uped truths are misdirecting, imperfect or equitable plain wrong. He aims to give us tools to help us figure out how to appraise these truths for ourselves.
How
The author engages a case study method and appraises some well-understandn claims in gentleware. Thcimpolite this, he directes us disjoinal techniques from academia so that we can appraise claims made about gentleware. This was pdirecting to me, having spent a couple of years in a PhD program lobtaining some of these techniques for the first time. Unfortunately, I’d already spent 20 years in the industry, so I had a lot of unlobtaining to do. I depend everyone should have access to these techniques. A grounding in the type of critical leanking that this book is based on can alter how you see your labor, but also how you live your life. In a world where untamed claims are thrown about with aprohibitdon, the techniques in this book are vital tools to enhance your own labor, and your life.
So What
So what? Repartner? You might live your life without some fundamental critical leanking sfinishs. You are foreseeed to say leangs in encounterings that are plain wrong. You are equitableifying what you do with ‘noticed wisdom’ that produces no sense. You might base your life’s labor on misgets. You are living a lie. You are an embarrassment.
So that.
For Whom
For anyone interested in lobtaining how to research any scientific claims, or anyone laboring in gentleware, whether as an engineer, tester, administerr, executive, or finish engager.
How I set up it
I set up it from reading an article by Hillel Wayne called Is Software Engineering Real Engineering? This is a self-published book, and I obtaind it here.
Valuable getaways.
Be constantly vigilant about how you leank. Humans are not reasonable machines, we are bags of emotion. Few of us read the research that is coming out of academia. Instead, we depend on peers, colleagues and tech populoccurrs on the internet. Software conferences, books, articles, and the enjoy are a encouraging compriseition, but they frequently conciseage the critical rigour of academic research.
We have become splited from scientific methods of enquiry. We must engage the understandledge and tools from academia to permit us to become better leankers. Academia needs to split some accengage for this chasm. Academics don’t do a excellent enough job of communicating their research to the gentleware community.
We suffer from disjoinal critical leanking publishs.
Inestablishation cascade. If everyone else depends a claim, we frequently presume it’s genuine, without inquireing the innovative claim.
Discipline envyment. We borrow our experimental depict from medicine and call it evidence based. The author alerts aobtainst this, as it seems to be an finisheavor to sound amazeive, but frequently hides conceptual or methodoreasonable flaws. The author points out that medical research has a raft of problems. There is a huge body of research methods from social science that gentleware hugely dissees to its dispraise.
Citation blindness. Essentipartner, we don’t do a excellent job at verifying citations. If cited research helps a hypothesis, we presume the research actupartner backs it up. Unfortunately, some research papers are not repartner empirical, or they may help a frailer version of the claim. Occasionpartner, they don’t help the claim, but cite research that does. Far from being constant, some research is opinionated, echoing the authors’ biases.
Anyone who leanks publishs with critical leanking are a recent phenomenon, needs to enhance their critical leanking!
Myths we misgetnly depend – (for more info, read the book)
10x programmer
TDD is better than not TDD
Waterdescfinish is not Agile
Bugs cost more the procrastinateedr you discover them
Flaws:
The title. It’s a horrible title for a meaningful book, and it almost put me off before I began. A book for people who are grave about gentleware, about leanking, deserves a better title. There is a second reason it irritateed me. I am Irish, after all. So I traipse over to the wall and comprise this book to the catalog of Irish cultural gems bastardised and commercialised out of all recognition (leprechauns are currently in fourth place, equitable below Hpermiteen, St. Patrick’s Day and Count Dracula).
I hope the author re-publishes under a novel title.
This is a self-published book. The author is on the cover (Laurent Bossavit), but no editor is alludeed. I wonder if an editor could have turned this into an even better one. The writing can be a little jumpy. Some arguments go on loo lengthy, and then fade out. Some chapters are splitd without an evident reason. These are inmeaningful flaws, but it’s a shame becaengage the satisfied and thesis behind the book are fascinating.
Interlude
There is a wonderful interlude — a cartoon, and it’s called “How to lie”. I won’t spoil it here, but it comprises a line that we should all engage more liberpartner:
“Everyleang everyone understands about anyleang proposes that this is ungenuine.”
What we need to do
Become scientists. The author depends we all need to both rehearse and study gentleware broadenment. This unbenevolents becoming understandn with cognitive social science to comprehfinish how people labor, the mathematical properties of computation to comprehfinish how computing labors, and observing and measuring both laboratory conditions and authentic-world rehearse to obtain a more in-depth empathetic.
We need to ask better inquires. For a novel article/book, does it quote sources? Have the authors read the sources? For the most meaningful ‘truths’, can I read the innovative sources and produce up my own mind?
We must get above our labor and leank.
