Skip to main content
5 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 9, 2012 at 4:40 comment added Steven A. Lowe addendum: the EBSE site has some useful information, dur.ac.uk/ebse/evidence.php would be especially useful to those new to the SE field - but take the surveys with a block of salt, because (1) the evidence available is scant and (2) the average results may not be relevant to the performance of your team of specific individuals with highly specialized skills and aptitudes.
Sep 9, 2012 at 4:33 comment added Steven A. Lowe I appreciate your enthusiasm. Medical science and software development are radically different disciplines. While the analogy is interesting, it is hardly groundbreaking. The full paper is available here labada.inf.utfsm.cl/~gvaldes/ESE/docs/… Section 5 reflects the impedance mismatch mentioned in the abstract. A more direct mapping of the medical techniques would be to debugging existing systems, not building new ones. ;) If you want to build better products, build better teams. The people are far more important than the tools (c.f. Peopleware)
Sep 7, 2012 at 18:43 comment added user4051 Steven: part of the motivation behind EBSE is to go from "I can guess the following problems, therefore I will reject any chance of your solution working" to analysing results on their own merits. There's much more to a paper than its abstract.
Aug 31, 2012 at 19:49 comment added Steven A. Lowe from the abstract of the cited paper, emphasis mine: "The skill factor means software engineering experiments are vulnerable to subject and experimenter bias. The lifecycle factor means it is difficult to determine how technologies will behave once deployed. Conclusions: Software engineering would benefit from adopting what it can of the evidence approach provided that it deals with the specific problems that arise from the nature of software engineering." To which I would add: good luck with that! ;)
Aug 30, 2012 at 13:09 history answered user4051 CC BY-SA 3.0