←back to thread

225 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
yen223 ◴[] No.46184611[source]
The unique thing about estimates in software engineering is that if you do it right, projects should be impossible to estimate!

Tasks that are easiest to estimate are tasks that are predictable, and repetitive. If I ask you how long it'll take to add a new database field, and you've added a new database field 100s of times in the past and each time they take 1 day, your estimate for it is going to be very spot-on.

But in the software world, predictable and repetitive tasks are also the kinds of tasks that are most easily automated, which means the time it takes to perform those tasks should asymptotically approach 0.

But if the predictable tasks take 0 time, how long a project takes will be dominated by the novel, unpredictable parts.

That's why software estimates are very hard to do.

replies(19): >>46184700 #>>46184806 #>>46184873 #>>46184947 #>>46185145 #>>46185627 #>>46185768 #>>46185915 #>>46185952 #>>46186292 #>>46186318 #>>46186774 #>>46187054 #>>46187512 #>>46188101 #>>46189271 #>>46189483 #>>46196595 #>>46201725 #
wpietri ◴[] No.46184947[source]
And I'd add that the need for them is a sign they aren't worth doing.

As you say, worthwhile software is usually novel. And to justify our expense, it needs to be valuable. So to decide whether a project is worth doing, we're looking at some sort of estimate of return on investment.

That estimate will also, at least implicitly, have a range. That range is determined by both the I and the R. If you don't have a precise estimate of return, making your estimate of investment more precise doesn't help anything. And I've never seen an estimate of return both precise and accurate; business is even less certain than software.

In my opinion, effort put into careful estimates is almost always better put into early, iterative delivery and product management that maximizes the information gained. Shipping early and often buys much clearer information on both I and R than you can ever get in a conference room.

Of course all of this only matters if running an effective business is more important than managerial soap opera and office politics. Those often require estimates in much the same way they're required from Star Trek's engineers: so the people with main character syndrome have something to dramatically ignore or override to prove their dominance over the NPCs and material reality.

replies(4): >>46185137 #>>46185239 #>>46185289 #>>46188898 #
9dev ◴[] No.46185289[source]
> As you say, worthwhile software is usually novel.

This is an interesting assumption. I’d argue that the overwhelming majority of software is the most boring LoB CRUD apps you can imagine, and not novel at all. Yet, people need to estimate the tasks on these projects as well.

replies(2): >>46186201 #>>46187336 #
codr7 ◴[] No.46187336{3}[source]
But it's doing something novel, something the same people haven't done before, otherwise there would be no point in writing it.
replies(1): >>46189335 #
1. 9dev ◴[] No.46189335{4}[source]
Sure you can move the goalposts here, but OP clearly meant to say software tasks cannot be estimated because people only work on novel problems, since everything else is "not worth doing" (what a massively privileged thing to say by the way).

Just because something hasn't been done the exact same way you're doing, that doesn't mean you can't apply a generic solution. I have never changed a tyre on an SUV before, yet I do know how to do so based on my previous experience with a sedan. The same applies to a car mechanic; even if I bring a brand new car to the workshop they have never seen before, I can and should expect them to be able to (at least roughly) estimate how long a tyre change is going to take.