Hi,
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
On any *single* criterion (performance, scalability, testability,
complexity reduction, etc.), you can easily come up with one or more
proposals that will achieve some improvement on that criterion at a
lower cost compared to the *whole* of what I've proposed.
But no counter-proposal made so far can match mine on *all* of the
criteria, nor can any *combination* of those counter-proposals match
mine in overall cost-benefit ratios, after you add up their individual
costs.
Hmmm, may be I missed something in the thread but I haven't seen numbers
related to "cost" flying around so it's hard to add them and even harder
to compare them. So it's a rather hollow argument.
It's not true anyway that final cost is the only criteria. For instance,
if we had the whole set of numbers, we *might* choose to spend more
overall (over 6 years say) and go with a path that provides more
predictability or a lower burn rate. We may also decide that the overall
cost is way too high under any hypothesis and decide to drop some of the
criterions.
All we can say right now is based on "gut feeling" rather than data and
research. Not shameful (that's the nature of business) but worth
pointing to. Trying to clear some of the uncertainty with a limited
pilot project (which we could use as "research" to qualify the "gut
feeling") seems to be the only logical next step here.
Cheers,
- Philippe
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
