Sutton's Zeroth Law
-
I like it. And since the speed of light is a constant, you're right!
Dan Sutton wrote:
And since the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant
FTFY. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Here's my zeroth law of software development, which I now share for your amusement: NQ/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
Seems a bit incomplete to me, you need to add the number of managers, and the level of customer involvement AKA feature creep. :~
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
Dan Sutton wrote:
And since the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant
FTFY. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Well, it's a constant in any medium. Just a different constant.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
Seems a bit incomplete to me, you need to add the number of managers, and the level of customer involvement AKA feature creep. :~
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
Dan Sutton wrote:
And since the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant
FTFY. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I thought about it... but that's not strictly true, anyway, if you consider the relativistic effects of high-density, high-mass objects: in fact, "the speed of light in a vacuum around a given mass is a constant" -- but that's not true, either, because the speed of light is the speed at which one can circumnavigate the universe once in a period of one universe lifetime... and since the universe is expanding, that value is changing constantly (along with the size of a meter, and so forth)... so effectively, the speed of light is a constant only because we want it to be.
-
Seems a bit incomplete to me, you need to add the number of managers, and the level of customer involvement AKA feature creep. :~
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
I'll buy that. Change "programmers" to "people". LOL!
-
I'll buy that. Change "programmers" to "people". LOL!
I was thinking more in the lines of: NQM(2f+1)/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - M is the number of managers on the project; - f is feature creep (in percents of the original number of features); - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
I was thinking more in the lines of: NQM(2f+1)/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - M is the number of managers on the project; - f is feature creep (in percents of the original number of features); - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
Doubling the number of features doesn't just double the time needed as it's also adding complexity. Hmm, it's probably more like (f+1)2 when I think about it.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
I was thinking more in the lines of: NQM(2f+1)/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - M is the number of managers on the project; - f is feature creep (in percents of the original number of features); - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
Brilliant! Although... since you don't want to affect N inversely with M, then I suggest: (N^(M(2f+1)))Q/t=c ...which, since M implies 2f+1, could theoretically be shortened to: (N^M)Q/t=c (or else, we could include a constant to state the probability of someone posting a thread like this...)
-
Here's my zeroth law of software development, which I now share for your amusement: NQ/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
NQ/t=c is incorrect. It is: NQ/t=C^2 Where "C" = Change; as in "_________ in my pocket" from all of the "_________ requests"
-
NQ/t=c is incorrect. It is: NQ/t=C^2 Where "C" = Change; as in "_________ in my pocket" from all of the "_________ requests"
That's the spirit!
-
I was thinking more in the lines of: NQM(2f+1)/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - M is the number of managers on the project; - f is feature creep (in percents of the original number of features); - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
I think we are getting somewhere, but you also need to account for "New Technology" with a heavier factor than feature creep (e.g. "We are going to change our platform to be all in the Cloud"). Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
-
I think we are getting somewhere, but you also need to account for "New Technology" with a heavier factor than feature creep (e.g. "We are going to change our platform to be all in the Cloud"). Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
Nah, a new technology is a whole load of features in one go, you just need to break them apart and the formula will still work.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
learner'sbug wrote:
not f+1 ?
Because f+1 is a race with no passing.
This space intentionally left blank.
-
Here's my zeroth law of software development, which I now share for your amusement: NQ/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
-
I thought about it... but that's not strictly true, anyway, if you consider the relativistic effects of high-density, high-mass objects: in fact, "the speed of light in a vacuum around a given mass is a constant" -- but that's not true, either, because the speed of light is the speed at which one can circumnavigate the universe once in a period of one universe lifetime... and since the universe is expanding, that value is changing constantly (along with the size of a meter, and so forth)... so effectively, the speed of light is a constant only because we want it to be.
No. In a vacuum the speed of light is constant. No exceptions. The light can be bent by mass, but not slowed down. The universe is expanding, yes, so the light is going to need more and more time to travel across it, but the speed is still constant. No implications about it. In fact, relativity states that the speed of light in a vacuum is the ONLY thing that remains constant in different reference systems. Which can get you down in a very deep rabbit hole: time shrinks and space expands, but whoever are you, wherever are you, you will still get around 300'000 km/s for a ray of light in a vacuum.
-
No. In a vacuum the speed of light is constant. No exceptions. The light can be bent by mass, but not slowed down. The universe is expanding, yes, so the light is going to need more and more time to travel across it, but the speed is still constant. No implications about it. In fact, relativity states that the speed of light in a vacuum is the ONLY thing that remains constant in different reference systems. Which can get you down in a very deep rabbit hole: time shrinks and space expands, but whoever are you, wherever are you, you will still get around 300'000 km/s for a ray of light in a vacuum.
Yes, but the size of a kilometer changes as the universe expands. So does the size of the instruments used to measure it, and the atoms constituting said instruments, so we don't notice... but to an outside (the universe) observer, a difference would be noticeable.
-
Not so sure about that. If either N or Q are 0, then c = 0. Knowing this and assuming c is a constant, then t = lim(x->inf), or lim(x->-inf).
.
Well, it almost makes sense: if you have no programmers, it's not really supposed to mean anything...
-
I thought about it... but that's not strictly true, anyway, if you consider the relativistic effects of high-density, high-mass objects: in fact, "the speed of light in a vacuum around a given mass is a constant" -- but that's not true, either, because the speed of light is the speed at which one can circumnavigate the universe once in a period of one universe lifetime... and since the universe is expanding, that value is changing constantly (along with the size of a meter, and so forth)... so effectively, the speed of light is a constant only because we want it to be.
Is the universe expanding, or it is simply our abilty to see further into the universe that is expanding? If we can't see the reaches of the universe, how can we know that it is expanding? And, if it is expanding, what is it expanding into? Does the absence of matter mean that space doesn't exist?