That's a nice approach, if you have the wherewithal to pull it off. I just wonder if there isn't a variation of the Peter Principle involved. Does this mean you're taking a team that's proven itself to be really great at developing a new solution, and putting it on maintenance duty? Or does this mean that only the successful team gets to move on as a whole to developing a new project?
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Robert Casto <[email protected]> wrote: > Another explanation is Darwin. > > While working at Amazon I noticed there were multiple teams working on the > same problem. One would come up with the best solution and survive. The > rest were disbanded and the team members had to find other teams to join. > > It's not frugal by any means. And can seem wasteful. But it sure got some > great solutions. A single team wouldn't have the competition to drive it. > And the company would be placing its bets on that one team succeeding > instead of 3 or 4. > > So Google may be doing the same thing hoping that one of them succeeds. > Sometimes the only way to know that is to get it out into the public and > see what sticks. At Amazon almost everything is for internal use so they > decide and disband the rest. At Google, many things are for external use as > well as internal so we are probably seeing more of this. > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Russel Winder <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 11:49 -0500, Josh Berry wrote: >> [ . . . ] >> > Though, I have felt some fatigue at the number of languages coming out >> > of Google. Seems that they stay willfully ignorant of what others are >> > working on at times. (The dart folks had never heard of coffeescript, >> > for example.) >> >> On interpretation might be that Google is so big and has so little >> management reporting that works, that until the languages are announced >> no-one in Google other than the development team knows about the work. >> >> Another interpretation might be that Google is so afraid of all the >> software patents lined up against it, that it protects itself by >> requiring all language designers to not study the current languages >> being developed in case they violate a patent and end up in court. >> >> -- >> Russel. >> >> ============================================================================= >> Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: >> sip:[email protected] >> 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] >> London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder >> > > > > -- > Robert Casto > www.robertcasto.com > www.sellerstoolbox.com > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
