On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob La Quey wrote: > > > Well if 2 is company and 3 a crowd then is 5 a committee? :) > > > > I wonder why novels are rarely written by committees. And what > > about the technical world is so different from publishing fiction? > > Ahem. I was being polite in choosing then number 5. If you look up the > data, it is at least an inverse ratio. The fewer the number of > developers, the *many* more projects there are. One may be the lonliest > number, but that's the largest number of projects on SF.net.
Aren't there are also many more "projects" than "projects with code?" > And, as a rebuttal to your authoring point, I would argue that many of > the best novels were produced by a "committee" of at least 2. An author > and an editor. Simply having one extra person read and correct the > novel created a *much* better end product in most cases. I agree. I do think that is a fairly recent development. Did Dostoyevsky have a good editor? I do not know. > In fact, I blame the decline of editing for some of the absolutely > wretched garbage now sitting on the shelves of the bookstores. Um... maybe, but I doubt it. I think that the pulp novel, popular but wretched garbage, has long been around. BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
