Comments on: A hard problem worth solving http://blog.robla.net/2008/hard-problem/ Just like a diary, only without a way to dot the i's with hearts; robla, margl, and hazel's blog Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:27:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Gigs http://blog.robla.net/2008/hard-problem/#comment-62498 Gigs Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:48:37 +0000 http://blog.robla.net/?p=75#comment-62498 I wonder how much of that IDC number is just Microsoft OEM software deals. That's an anomaly that should probably be removed from any analysis of the software markets in general. I wonder how much of that IDC number is just Microsoft OEM software deals. That’s an anomaly that should probably be removed from any analysis of the software markets in general.

]]> By: Tateru Nino http://blog.robla.net/2008/hard-problem/#comment-62465 Tateru Nino Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:34:03 +0000 http://blog.robla.net/?p=75#comment-62465 Some slight hair splitting. I'm most familiar with the terms organic/inorganic in software engineering holding other definitions. Software that has "grown (often uncontrollably) beyond the original design and is in desperate need of refactoring/redesign/redevelopment" is (in my experience) referred to as organic, whereas software that remains faithful to its design is "inorganic". Thus you start with an organic piece of software designed to meet a set of needs, and implement it. Then it grows 'organically' in response to user/customer feedback, bizarre and unanticipated bugfixes, tactical business threats, until it essentially becomes more expensive to continue to maintain than to discard and redesign for actual current needs (and probably performs quite poorly as a result). Aside from the minor quibble about terminology (which might well cause some confusion), you make a very good point. Some slight hair splitting. I’m most familiar with the terms organic/inorganic in software engineering holding other definitions.
Software that has “grown (often uncontrollably) beyond the original design and is in desperate need of refactoring/redesign/redevelopment” is (in my experience) referred to as organic, whereas software that remains faithful to its design is “inorganic”.

Thus you start with an organic piece of software designed to meet a set of needs, and implement it. Then it grows ‘organically’ in response to user/customer feedback, bizarre and unanticipated bugfixes, tactical business threats, until it essentially becomes more expensive to continue to maintain than to discard and redesign for actual current needs (and probably performs quite poorly as a result).

Aside from the minor quibble about terminology (which might well cause some confusion), you make a very good point.

]]>