Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!ogicse!pdxgate!parsely!percy!data!kend From: kend@data.UUCP (Ken Dickey) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Overengineering Software Message-ID: <482@data.UUCP> Date: 29 Apr 91 19:05:27 GMT References: <1828@qusunita.queensu.CA> Organization: Microcosm, Beaverton, OR Lines: 33 skill@qucis.queensu.CA (David Skillicorn) writes: >A number of people have used metaphors for the robustness of software >based on physical processes such as bridge building. Such metaphors >contain some dangers since they tend to suggest that building software >is much like building bridges, and building in a little extra something >will increase the of the software. I think that you are confusing the engineering practice of using "excess capacity" (e.g. for load bearing strength) with adding materials or structural features. >... Software is not continuous ... Neither is the strength of materials. Classical example: a large number of small dams have been built in this country with wood. For a large dam (e.g. Hoover), you don't add more wood. The scale requires the use of different materials. >... Two behaviours of the system that >are perceived by users to be very close by some appearance metric >may be wildly different in some metric suitable to the internal logic >of the program. As a "bridge" may span a small creek or the San Francisco Bay... Perhaps the problem you are worried about may arise because the metaphor is not followed closely enough! -Ken Dickey kend@data.uucp