Re: In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)
From: Richard (riplin_at_Azonic.co.nz)
Date: 10 Jul 2004 13:08:53 -0700
email@example.com (Robert Wagner) wrote
> The day I arrived, the company had three programmers. The other two left
It is very tempting to conclude ...
> and I
> replaced them with five. During the seven year interval, sales doubled (to
> $2B), then dropped to its original level. Soon after I left, the number of
> programmers increased to about 20.
> There wasn't a 'diminishing return' because the new staff had no investment in
> the old standard. We created a new standard based on modular programming and,
> over 2-3 years, rewrote 2-3K programs.
It seems to me that one may conclude:
Old standards: 3 programmers
New standards: 6 programmers (who had developed with those)
New standards: 20 programmers (who had not developed those)
The number of programmers increased to 20 _because_ of the new
standards, or because the old standards were no longer in force.
Perhaps with the old standards it only required 3 programmers because
they could find everything required to do changes to the system to
keep up with business needs.
The 6 rewrote the system and knew enough about it to keep changes
meeting business needs.
Later, 20 were required because it was difficult to locate required
modifications, changes were difficult to contain, percollating to many
parts of the system, requiring large retesting mechanisms.
Also you said that every employer went bankrupt.
Perhaps even the 20 were unable to keep up with business changes.