Top
Best
New

Posted by MonkeyClub 4 days ago

Painless Software Schedules (2000)(www.joelonsoftware.com)
42 points | 29 comments
SyneRyder 4 days ago|
I liked this idea when it came out, and there was some software that implemented it. Mr Schedule by Andrew Pietschy added outliner functionality to Joel's idea, so you could see how much time a group of subtasks would take (and if you should maybe drop that feature group to make your deadline). It had some keyboard driven shortcuts that made it faster to move around in than Excel, while making things simpler.

Unfortunately Mr Schedule and the pietschy.com website disappeared. I made my own recreation using REALbasic / Xojo at the time, but never released it and faded from using it.

Joel Spolsky expanded the idea later with Evidence Based Scheduling:

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/10/26/evidence-based-sch...

That takes the estimates from Painless Software Schedules, but runs a Monte Carlo simulation using your estimates & data on actual time taken, to create a confidence distribution curve graph of when you'll be finished.

awesan 51 minutes ago||
I have done the monte carlo thing in practice with a team and it works well under some conditions.

The most important is that the team needs to actually use the task board (or whatever data source you use to get your inputs) to track their work actively. It cannot be an afterthought that gets looked at every now and then, it actually needs to be something the team uses.

My current team kind of doesn't like task boards because people tend to work in small groups on projects where they can keep that stuff in their own heads. This requires some more communication but that happens naturally anyway. They are still productive, but this kind of forecasting doesn't work then.

rwmj 25 minutes ago||
I hate this whole thing with me having to use some tool to track the work (usually Jira which is a PoS). My entire output is data, why can't a tool automatically summarise what I'm doing? It seems an ideal task for an AI actually.
eweise 31 minutes ago||
Here's a real schedule: CEO: we need to launch x end of Q2 PM: Here are the four monthly milestones Engineer Mgr: Let's estimate the stories. Now put them into eight sprints Go!
robshippr 29 minutes ago||
I miss his writing, I haven't seen a post by him in a while. His blog and Coding Horror are what I used to read all the time in my undergrad.
arrsingh 16 minutes ago||
I actually did this (around 2006) after reading this article by Joel and I was skeptical but I used excel and wrote down all the tasks that needed to be done and kept breaking it down till each task was in hours.

It took me a few hours to do and as Joel says in the article, it was not a fun thing to do (jumping right into code was more fun) but I stuck with it and did the whole thing.

Then I followed that list of tasks and kept track of when tasks started and ended and I was pleasantly surprised when after a few weeks the project was done right on schedule as predicted by the excel sheet. So my experience (data point of 1) was that it works if you do it exactly how he says to do it in the blog post.

I did it only that one time so take that for what it is.

robotresearcher 8 minutes ago||
The article mentions milestones twice, and assumes their existence. But the scheduling methodology described has nothing to say about where these come from or how to think about them. So it’s missing something that makes it at least a little less simple.
allknowingfrog 1 hour ago||
"When you have to pick fine grained tasks, you are forcing yourself to actually figure out what steps you are going to have to take."

That process isn't free. For many features, it's the largest share of the work.

eterm 56 minutes ago|
It's the opposite of free, it's valuable.

Even for features that stay on the cutting-room floor. Especially for features that stay on the cutting-room floor.

commandlinefan 40 minutes ago||
As always, the only way anybody has ever thought of to "plan" software is:

    1) write down everything you're going to do
    2) write down how long that's going to take
    3) add them all up and voila!  You have a schedule!
The ways this breaks down in practice would be comical if not for the fact that everybody takes it so seriously. The biggest problem is that step 1 takes longer than the actual software development task all the time, every time. That might not be _so_ bad other than the fact that it's also always completely wrong.
petcat 1 hour ago||
> Netscape has seen its browser share go from about 80% to about 20% during this time, all the while it could do nothing to address competitive concerns, because their key software product was disassembled in 1000 pieces on the floor and was in no shape to drive anywhere. That single bad decision, more than anything else, was the nuclear bomb Netscape blew itself up with.

This post from spolsky is always amusing to me because it came 6 months after Microsoft was convicted of antitrust violations to crush Netscape. So it's funny that he claims Netscape killed themselves, when the courts actually said that Microsoft killed Netscape. Obviously Netscape made critical bad decisions, but Microsoft's illegal behavior was what actually killed them.

bryanrasmussen 57 minutes ago|
I mean if Netscape had been in any kind of condition to defend itself maybe MS wouldn't have succeeded.
petcat 39 minutes ago||
Netscape made mistakes, but they didn't lose 60% of their market share in just two years because they didn't ship a major update. They lost it because Microsoft bundled a "good enough" browser with their operating system already installed on the computers out of the box.
avadodin 3 days ago||
Was wondering how StockOverflow guy was doing these days and it turns out he sold the company for $2B in 2021. What's the saying? Time in the market vs timing the market. Good for him but imagine being one of the investors.
simongray 57 minutes ago||
> What's the saying? Time in the market vs timing the market.

Seems like he managed both.

akgoel 1 hour ago||
The stackoverflow investors (Prosus) have licensed their data to the AI companies for training. They are most likely doing fine.
stuxnet79 1 hour ago||
What additional data is worth paying for that wasn't already freely given awaY? Right now you can download the entire corpus of Stack Exchange content for local review off of the Kiwix library. Because it's primarily text the dataset isn't even that large.
neves 35 minutes ago||
I really miss Joel writings. His wit was unmatchable
stevoski 1 hour ago|
For many of us, the way we manage software projects has changed has changed so much since the days when Joel wrote this.

It was a different age, with different products. I’m sure there are still products built the old ways, but Joel was writing before SaaS and CI/CD and endless roadmaps.

j45 46 minutes ago|
Reading into Joel, he was building SaaS. Fogbugz to name one.

He seems to have other posts on the lifecycle of software and product budding. Maybe it wasn’t mainstream then but some folks were doing meaningful parts of it.

stevoski 40 minutes ago||
Fogbugz, if the first version even existed in 2000, was not a SaaS. Nor was Jira, by the way.

Both products were initially once-off purchases that you had to install and run on your own infrastructure, and with new, major versions packed with new features that you had to buy if you wanted, but could ignore if you didn’t.

The move to a SaaS model came years later for both products.

More comments...