From: Jacob Fugal <lukfugl@...>
Date: 2006-09-12T23:53:58+09:00
Subject: Re: The economics of a slow but productive Ruby

On 9/12/06, Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/12/06, Jacob Fugal <lukfugl@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > My purpose was never to propose that certain values of X or Y are
> > correct, but rather to provide a framework equation inside which
> > different values of X and Y can be examined.
>
> This is interesting as far as it goes, but the challenge I have with
> it is that I'm not sure the things you propose to measure are
> necessarily that important in the economics of many projects (and
> "economics" appears in your thread title).
>
> We programmers tend to fantasize that what we do is the most important
> part of any effort that involves software development but in many
> organizations that's far from true. In particular I would guess that
> there is more sensitivity to machine requirements since they tend to
> involve capex and often represent a variable cost component in any
> project. You may find this bizarre, but many companies view
> programmers as human resources, which carry a wide range of
> incremental costs going far beyond their variable contributions to any
> particular project. If you make the commitment to hire a person as an
> employee, it's very difficult for a whole range of reasons to let the
> person go. From that point of view, a programmer is a lot like a fixed
> cost. Their availability may constrain the number of projects you
> attempt but not necessarily their direct cost, as it impacts your
> choice of development platform. Outsourcing or using consultants
> changes this calculus, but you still have to provision maintenance and
> support programmers.
>
> I would guess (though I have no data to back this up) that Ruby finds
> far more acceptance in projects where the developers themselves are
> the ones making the financial (or time) commitment. Under those
> circumstances it's a no-brainer to use a development system that 1)
> you dearly love, and 2) you are convinced will save you a lot of time,
> and 3) you're convinced will let you get the job done with fewer
> people. Many people who fund corporate projects couldn't care less
> about 1), and think that 2) and 3) are mutually exclusive.

Very good points. Thanks for the feedback!

Jacob Fugal