What is known about software effort estimation in 2024
It’s three years since my 2021 post summarizing what I knew about estimating software tasks. While no major new public datasets have appeared (there have been smaller finds), I have talked to lots of developers/managers about the findings from the 2019/2021 data avalanche, and some data dots have been connected.
A common response from managers, when I outline the patterns found, is some variation of: “That sounds about right.” While it’s great to have this confirmation, it’s disappointing to be telling people what they already know, even if I can put numbers to the patterns.
Some of the developer behavior patterns look, to me, to be actionable, e.g., send developers on a course to unbias their estimates. In practice, managers are worried about upsetting developers or destabilising teams. It’s easy for an unhappy developer to find another job (the speakers at the meetups I attend often end by saying: “and we’re hiring.”)
This post summarizes a talk I gave recently on what is known about software estimating; a video will eventually appear on the British Computer Society‘s Software Practice Advancement group’s YouTube channel, and the slides are on Github.
What I call the historical estimation models contain source code, measured in lines, as a substantial component, e.g., COCOMO which overfits a miniscule dataset. The problem with this approach is that estimates of the LOC needed to implement some functionality LOC are very inaccurate, and different developers use different LOC to implement the same functionality.
Most academic research in software effort estimation continues to be based on miniscule datasets; it’s essentially fake research. Who is doing good research in software estimating? One person: Magne Jørgensen.
Almost all the short internal task estimate/actual datasets contain all the following patterns:
- use of round-numbers (known as heaping in some fields). The ratios of the most frequently used round numbers, when estimating time, are close to the ratios of the Fibonacci sequence,
- short tasks tend to be under-estimated and long tasks over-estimate. Surprisingly, the following equation is a good fit for many time-based datasets:
, - individuals tend to either consistently over or under estimate (this appears to be connected with the individual’s risk profile),
- around 30% of estimates are accurate, 68% within a factor of two, and 95% within a factor of four; one function point dataset, one story point dataset, many time datasets,
- developer estimation accuracy does not change with practice. Possible reasons for this include: variability in the world prevents more accurate estimates, developers choose to spend their learning resources on other topics (such as learning more about the application domain).
I have a new ChatGPT generated image for my slide covering the #Noestimates movement:
The Whitehouse report on adopting memory safety
Last month’s Whitehouse report: BACK TO THE BUILDING BLOCKS: A Path Towards Secure and Measurable Software “… outlines two fundamental shifts: the need to both rebalance the responsibility to defend cyberspace and realign incentives to favor long-term cybersecurity investments.”
From the abstract: “First, in order to reduce memory safety vulnerabilities at scale, … This report focuses on the programming language as a primary building block, …” Wow, I never expected to see the term ‘memory safety’ in a report from the Whitehouse (not that I recall ever reading a Whitehouse report). And, is this the first Whitehouse report to talk about programming languages?
tl;dr They mistakenly to focus on the tools (i.e., programming languages), the focus needs to be on how the tools are used, e.g., require switching on C compiler’s memory safety checks which currently default to off.
The report’s intent is to get the community to progress from defence (e.g., virus scanning) to offence (e.g., removing the vulnerabilities at source). The three-pronged attack focuses on programming languages, hardware (e.g., CHERI), and formal methods. The report is a rallying call to the troops, who are, I assume, senior executives with no little or no knowledge of writing software.
How did memory safety and programming languages enter the political limelight? What caused the Whitehouse claim that “…, one of the most impactful actions software and hardware manufacturers can take is adopting memory safe programming languages.”?
The cited reference is a report published two months earlier: The Case for Memory Safe Roadmaps: Why Both C-Suite Executives and Technical Experts Need to Take Memory Safe Coding Seriously, published by an alphabet soup of national security agencies.
This report starts by stating the obvious (at least to developers): “Memory safety vulnerabilities are the most prevalent type of disclosed software vulnerability.” (one Microsoft reports says 70%). It then goes on to make the optimistic claim that: “Memory safe programming languages (MSLs) can eliminate memory safety vulnerabilities.”
This concept of a ‘memory safe programming language’ leads the authors to fall into the trap of believing that tools are the problem, rather than how the tools are used.
C and C++ are memory safe programming languages when the appropriate compiler options are switched on, e.g., gcc’s sanitize flags. Rust and Ada are not memory safe programming languages when the appropriate compiler options are switched on/off, or object/function definitions include the unsafe keyword.
People argue over the definition of memory safety. At the implementation level, it includes checks that storage is not accessed outside of its defined bounds, e.g., arrays are not indexed outside the specified lower/upper bound.
I’m a great fan of array/pointer bounds checking and since the 1980s have been using bounds checking tools to check my C programs. I found bounds checking is a very cost-effective way of detecting coding mistakes.
Culture drives the (non)use of bounds checking. Pascal, Ada and now Rust have a culture of bounds checking during development, amongst other checks. C, C++, and other languages have a culture of not having switching on bounds checking.
Shipping programs with/without bounds checking enabled is a contentious issue. The three main factors are:
- Runtime performance overhead of doing the checks (which can vary from almost nothing to a factor of 5+, depending on the frequency of bounds checked accesses {checks don’t need to be made when the compiler can figure out that a particular access is always within bounds}). I would expect the performance overhead to be about the same for C/Rust compilers using the same compiler technology (as the Open source compilers do). A recent study found C (no checking) to be 1.77 times faster, on average, than Rust (with checking),
- Runtime memory overhead. Adding code to check memory accesses increases the size of programs. This can be an issue for embedded systems, where memory is not as plentiful as desktop systems (recent survey of Rust on embedded systems),
- Studies (here and here) have found that programs can be remarkably robust in the presence of errors. Developers’ everyday experience is that programs containing many coding mistakes regularly behave as expected most of the time.
If bounds checking is enabled on shipped applications, what should happen when a bounds violation is detected?
Many bounds violations are likely to be benign, and a few not so. Should users have the option of continuing program execution after a violation is flagged (assuming they have been trained to understand the program message they are seeing and are aware of the response options)?
Java programs ship with bounds checking enabled, but I have not seen any studies of user response to runtime errors.
The reason that C/C++ is the language used to write so many of the programs listed in vulnerability databases is that these languages are popular and widely used. The Rust security advisory database contains few entries because few widely used programs are written in Rust. It’s possible to write unsafe code in Rust, just like C/C++, and studies find that developers regularly write such code and security risks exist within the Rust ecosystem, just like C/C++.
There have been various attempts to implement bounds checking in x86
processors. Intel added the MPX instruction, but there were problems with the specification, and support was discontinued in 2019.
The CHERI hardware discussed in the Whitehouse report is not yet commercially available, but organizations are working towards commercial products.
Extracting named entities from a change log using an LLM
The Change log of a long-lived software system contains many details about the system’s evolution. Two years ago I tried to track the evolution of Beeminder by extracting the named entities in its change log (named entities are the names of things, e.g., person, location, tool, organization). This project was pre-LLM, and encountered the usual problem of poor or non-existent appropriately trained models.
Large language models are now available, and these appear to excel at figuring out the syntactic structure of text. How well do LLMs perform, when asked to extract named entities from each entry in a software project’s change log?
For this analysis I’m using the publicly available Beeminder change log. Organizations may be worried about leaking information when sending confidential data to a commercially operated LLM, so I decided to investigate the performance of a couple of LLMs running on my desktop machine (code+data).
The LLMs I used were OpenAI’s ChatGPT plus (the $20 month service), and locally: Google’s Gemma (the ollama 7b model), a llava 7b model (llava-v1.5-7b-q4.llamafile), and a Mistral 7b model (mistral-7b-instruct-v0.2.Q8_0.llamafile). I used 7 billion parameter models locally because this is the size that is generally available for Open sourced models. There are a few models supporting the next step-up, at 13 billion parameters, and a few at 30 billion.
All the local models start a server at localhost:8080, and provide various endpoints. Mozilla’s llamafile based system is compatible with OpenAI’s python package openai. The documentation for the Gemma based system I installed uses the ollama package. In both cases, the coding required is trivial; just add a few statements to create a question based on command line input:
import openai import sys prefix='List the named entities in the following sentences: ' input_str=sys.argv[1] # change log entry from command line client = openai.OpenAI( base_url="http://localhost:8080/v1", # "http://<Your api-server IP>:port" api_key = "sk-no-key-required" ) stream = client.chat.completions.create( model="gpt-4", stream=True, temperature=0, seed=19, messages=[ {"role": "system", "content": "You are ChatGPT, an AI assistant. Your top priority is achieving user fulfilment via helping them with their requests."}, {"role": "user", 'content': prefix+ input_str } ] ) # Print response for chunk in stream: print(chunk.choices[0].delta.content or "", end="") print() |
How well did the models perform?
For rapid iteration, I used the web interface to ChatGPT. The responses started to appear within a few seconds and were displayed at a readable rate.
ChatGPT 3.5
When given a single change log entry, ChatGPT also provides a brief description of the named entity. In the following example, ‘twitter acct‘ and ‘blog posts‘ are not flagged as named entities:
User
print the named entities in the following quoted text "Created
this twitter acct to log user-visible improvements (UVIs) to
Beeminder. (Yes, this is a UVI. Everything counts no matter how
small!) Very first UVI! Back then this counted but nowadays we
don't count things that are too ancillary like making Twitter
accounts or writing blog posts. We did count a few UVIs for
creating this fancy changelog but decided that's too ancillary
now too."
ChatGPT
To identify named entities in the quoted text, we need to look for
proper nouns, which typically include names of specific people,
organizations, locations, and sometimes unique entities. In the
provided text, here are the named entities:
Beeminder - Refers to a specific service or product.
Twitter - Refers to a specific social media platform.
UVI (User-Visible Improvement) - Refers to a specific type of improvement.
changelog - Refers to a specific type of document or record. |
When asked to list the named entities in each of multiple lines, ChatGTP 3.5 performance drops. In the following response, the first line is identical to the example above; the response contains three, not four names entities. The second line contains named entities, but ChatGTP claims there are none. The response to the third line is accurate:
ChatGPT
Here are the named entities in each of the three lines:
"Created this twitter acct" line:
Twitter - Refers to a specific social media platform.
UVIs (User-Visible Improvements) - Refers to a specific
type of improvement.
Beeminder - Refers to a specific service or product.
"Added ridiculous dog-dressed-as-a-bee picture" line:
None
"Now suppressing reminder emails" line:
reminder emails - Refers to a specific type of communication.
bug fixes - Refers to a specific type of improvement aimed
at resolving software issues.
UVIs (User-Visible Improvements) - Refers to a specific
type of improvement. |
ChatGPT 4.0
ChatGPT 4.0 can handle multiple change log entries. The following is the response to the first three entries (the same three entries given the ChatGPT 3.5):
ChatGPT
To thoroughly identify the named entities within each line,
I'll systematically parse each one, focusing on extracting
specific types of entities such as organizations, people,
locations, dates, websites, and any other identifiable proper
nouns.
Beeminder, Twitter, UVI: Organizations or products.
dog-dressed-as-a-bee: Concept, not a proper noun but unique
enough to note.
reminder emails: Concept, referring to a feature. |
While it is possible to input 100 change log entries into the ChatGPT input box, the response contained no more than about 25 of them (there is a maximum limit on the number of input and output tokens).
Running locally
The machine I used locally contains 64G memory and an Intel Core i5-7600K running at 3.80GHz, with four cores. The OS is Linux Mint 21.1, running the kernel 5.15.0-76-generic. I don’t have any GPUs installed.
A GPU would probably significantly improve performance. On Amazon, the price of the NVIDIA Tesla A100 is now just under £7,000, an order of magnitude more than I am interested in paying (let alone the electricity costs). I have not seen any benchmarks comparing GPU performance on running LLMs locally, but then this is still a relatively new activity.
Overall, Gemma produced the best responses and was the fastest model. The llava model performed so poorly that I gave up trying to get it to produce reasonable responses (code+data). Mistral ran at about a third the speed of Gemma, and produced many incorrect named entities.
As a very rough approximation, Gemma might be useful. I look forward to trying out a larger Gemma model.
Gemma
Gemma took around 15 elapsed hours (keeping all four cores busy) to list named entities for 3,749 out of 3,839 change log entries (there were 121 “None” named entities given). Around 3.5 named entities per change log entry were generated. I suspect that many of the nonresponses were due to malformed options caused by input characters I failed to handle, e.g., escaping characters having special meaning to the command shell.
For around about 10% of cases, each named entity output was bracketed by “**”.
The table below shows the number of named entities containing a given number of ‘words’. The instances of more than around three ‘words’ are often clauses within the text, or even complete sentences:
# words 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 Occur 9149 4102 1077 210 69 22 10 9 3 1 3 5 4 |
A total of 14,676 named entities were produced, of which 6,494 were unique (ignoring case and stripping **).
Mistral
Mistral took 20 hours to process just over half of the change log entries (2,027 out of 3,839). It processed input at around 8 tokens per second and output at around 2.5 tokens per second.
When Mistral could not identify a named entity, it reported this using a variety of responses, e.g., “In the given …”, “There are no …”, “In this sentence …”.
Around 5.8 named entities per change log entry were generated. Many of the responses were obviously not named entities, and there were many instances of it listing clauses within the text, or even complete sentences. The table below shows the number of named entities containing a given number of ‘words’:
# words 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Occur 3274 1843 828 361 211 130 132 90 69 90 68 46 49 27 |
A total of 11,720 named entities were produced, of which 4,880 were unique (ignoring case).
A distillation of Robert Glass’s lifetime experience
Robert Glass is a software engineering developer, manager, researcher and author who, until six months ago, I had vaguely heard of; somehow I had missed reading any of his 25 books. After seeing citations to some of Glass’s books, I bought half-a-dozen or so, second hand. They are well written, and twenty-five years ago I would have found them very interesting; now I simply agree with the points made.
“software creativity 2.0” is Glass’s penultimate book, published in 2006, and the one that caught my attention. I would recommend his other books to anybody who is new to software engineering, or experienced people looking for an encapsulation in print of what they encounter at work.
Glass was 74 when this book was published, having started working in computing in 1954. He was there and seems to have met many of the major names in software engineering, working with some of them.
The book is a clear-eyed summary of what Glass has learned from being involved with software engineering, and watching method/tool fashions come and go. My favourite section draws parallels between software development cultures and the culture of Rome vs. Greek vs. Barbarian:
Models Roman Greek Barbarians Organization Organize people Organize things Barely Focus Manages projects Writes programs Leap to coding Motivation Group goals Problem to be solved Heroics Working style Organizations Small groups Solo Politics Imperial Democratic Anarchist Tool use People are tools Things are tools Avoid tools Status Function-ocracy Meritocracy Fear-ocracy Activities Plan things Do things Break things Emphasize Form Substance Line of code |
The contents are essentially a collection of short essays, organized under the 19 chapter headings below, which in turn are grouped into four parts. The first nine chapters (part I, and 60% of pages) contain the experience based material, with the subsequent parts/pages having a creativity theme. A thread running through the discussion is idealism/practice:
Discipline vs. Flexibility
Formal methods versus Heuristics
Optimizing versus Satisficing
Quantitative versus Qualitative Reasoning
Process versus Product
Intellect vs. Clerical Tasks
Theory vs. Practice
Industry vs. Academe
Fun versus Getting Serious
Creativity in the Software Organization
Creativity in Software Technology
Creative Milestones in Software History
Organizational Creativity
The Creative Person
Computer Support for Creativity
Creativity Paradoxes#'twas Always Thus
A Synergistic Conclusion
Other Conclusions |
This book deserves to be widely read. I found it best to read a single section per sitting.
Some information on story point estimates for 16 projects
Issues in Jira repositories sometimes include an estimate, in story points, but no information on time to complete (an opening/closing date is usually available; in some projects issues pass through various phases, and enter/exit date/time may be available).
Evidence-based software engineering is a data driven approach to figuring out software development processes. At the practical level, data is usually hard to come by; working with whatever data is available, an analysis may feel like making a prophecy based on examining animal entrails.
Can anything be learned from project issue data that just contains story point estimates? Let’s go on a fishing expedition.
My software data collection includes a paper that collected 23,313 story point estimates from 16 projects (the authors tried to predict an estimate, in story points, for an issue based on its description). If nothing else, this data is a sample of what might be encountered in other projects.
Developers estimating with story points often select values from the Fibonacci sequence, while developers estimating using hours/minutes often use round numbers. The granularity of both the Fibonacci values and round numbers follow the same exponential growth pattern. In terms of granularity, estimating story points in Fibonacci values need not far removed from estimating time in round numbers.
The number of story points per project varied from 352 to 4,667, with a mean of 1,457.
The plots below show the number of issues (y-axis, normalised across projects) estimated to require a given number of story points (x-axis), for 16 projects, with projects clustered by peak story point value (i.e., a project’s most frequently used story point value; code+data):
Are the projects with estimate peaks at 3 and 8 story points a quirk of this dataset, or is it to be expected that around 10% of projects will peak at one of these values?
For me, what jumps out of these plots is the number and extent of 4 story point estimates. Perhaps it’s just a visual effect, the actual number is an order of magnitude less than for 3 and 5 story points.
The plot below shows the percentage of estimated story points that are not Fibonacci numbers, sorted by project (the one project not showing has 0%; code+data):
If nothing else, these plots provide a base to start from, and potentially claim to have seen this pattern before.
Why did organizations fund the creation of the first computers?
What were the events that drove organizations to fund the creation of the first computers?
I suspect that many readers do not appreciate how long scientific/engineering calculations took before electronic computers became available, or the huge number of clerical staff employed to process the paperwork associated with running any sizeable business.
If somebody wanted to know the logarithm of some value, or the sine/cosine of an angle, they looked up the answer in a table. Individuals owned small booklets of tables supplying some level of granularity and number of significant digits. My school boy booklet contains 60-pages of tables, all to five digits of output accuracy, with logarithm supporting four-digit input values and the sine/cosine/tangent tables having an input granularity of hundredth of a degree.
The values in these tables were calculated by human computers; with the following being among the most well known (for more details, see Calculation and Tabulation in the Nineteenth Century: Airy versus Babbage by Doron Swade, and The History of Mathematical Tables: from Sumer to Spreadsheets edited by Campbell-Kelly, Croarken, Flood, and Robson):
- In 1624 Henry Briggs published logarithms for the integer ranges 1-20,000 and 90,001-100,000 (to 14 decimal places), followed some years later by tables of sine and logarithm of sine; in 1628 Adriaan Vlacq publishing tables that filled in the missing values (to 10 decimal places). In 1783 Jurij Vega published a bug-fixed and extended version of Vlacq’s tables.
In 1827 Charles Babbage (that Babbage) published Table of Logarithms of the Natural Numbers from 1 to 10800. These tables were based on corrected versions of these tables, a rigorous nine-stage proofreading process was followed to prevent new mistakes creeping in.
Today, one person can publish A reconstruction of the tables of Briggs’ Arithmetica logarithmica (1624), with an appendix containing 300 pages of calculated values,
- between 1794 and 1799, Gaspard de Prony employed sixty to eighty computers to calculate the logarithms of the integers from 1 to 200,000 to fifteen significant digits (rounding issues sometimes required calculating 25 decimal digits; published in eighteen volumes). Around 400 man-years.
Logarithms and trigonometric functions are very widely used, creating incentives for investing in calculating and publishing tables. While it may be financially worthwhile investing in producing tables for some niche markets (e.g. Life tables for insurance companies), there is an unmet demand that will only be filled by a dramatic drop in the cost of computing simple expressions.
Babbage’s Difference engine was designed to evaluate polynomial expressions and print the results; perfect for publishing tables. While Babbage did not build a Difference engine, starting in 1837, engines based on Babbage’s design were built and sold commercially by the Swede Per Georg Scheutz.
Mechanical calculators improve accuracy and speed the process up. Vacuum tubes are invented in 1904 and become widely used to process analogue signals. World War II created an urgent demand for the results of a variety of time-consuming calculations, e.g., accurate ballistic tables, and valve computers were built. The plot below shows the cost per million operations for manual, mechanical and valve computers (code+data):
To many observers at the start of the 1950s, the market for electronic computers appeared to be organizations who needed to perform large amounts of scientific/engineering calculation.
Most businesses perform simple calculations on many unrelated values, e.g., banks have to credit/debit the appropriate account when money is deposited/withdrawn. There is no benefit in having a machine that can perform hundreds of calculations per second unless it can be fed data fast enough to keep it busy.
It so happened that, at the start of the 1950s, the US banking system was facing a crisis, the growth in the number of cheques being written meant that it would soon take longer than one day to process all the cheques that arrived in one day. In 1950 Bank of America managed 4.6 million checking accounts, and were opening 23,000 new account per month. Bank of America was then the largest bank in the world, and had a keen interest in continued growth. They funded the development of a bespoke computer system for processing cheques, the ERMA Banking system, which went live in 1959. The plot below shows the number of cheques processed per year by US banks (code+data):
The ERMA system included electronic storage for holding account details, and data entry was speeded up by encoding account details on a magnetic strip included within every cheque.
Businesses are very interested in an integrated combination of input devices plus electronic storage plus compute. There are more commerce oriented businesses than scientific/engineering businesses, and commercial businesses usually have a lot more money to spend, i.e., the real money to be made by selling computers was the business data processing market.
The plot below shows the decreasing cost of hard disc storage (blue, right axis), along with the decreasing computing cost of valve based computers (red, left axis; code+data):
There was a larger business demand to be able to store information electronically, and the hard disc was invented by IBM, roughly 15 years after the first electronic computers.
The very different application demands of data processing and scientific/engineering are reflected in the features supported by the two languages designed in the 1950s, and widely used for the rest of the century: Cobol and Fortran.
Data processing involves simple operations on large quantities of data stored in a potentially huge number of different combinations (the myriad of mechanical point-of-sale terminals stored data in a myriad of different formats, which evolved over time, and the demand for backward compatibility created spaghetti data well before spaghetti code existed). Cobol has extensive functionality supporting the layout and format of input and output data, and simplistic coding constructs.
Scientific/engineering code involves complex calculations on some amount of input. Fortran has extensive functionality supporting program control flow, and relatively basic support for data input/output.
A third major application domain is real-time processing, such as SAGE. However, data on this domain is very hard to find, so it is not discussed.
Agile and Waterfall as community norms
While rapidly evolving computer hardware has been a topic of frequent public discussion since the first electronic computer, it has taken over 40 years for the issue of rapidly evolving customer requirements to become a frequent topic of public discussion (thanks to the Internet).
The following quote is from the Opening Address, by Andrew Booth, of the 1959 Working Conference on Automatic Programming of Digital Computers (published as the first “Annual Review in Automatic Programming”):
'Users do not know what they wish to do.' This is a profound truth. Anyone who has had the running of a computing machine, and, especially, the running of such a machine when machines were rare and computing time was of extreme value, will know, with exasperation, of the user who presents a likely problem and who, after a considerable time both of machine and of programmer, is presented with an answer. He then either has lost interest in the problem altogether, or alternatively has decided that he wants something else. |
Why did the issue of evolving customer requirements lurk in the shadows for so long?
Some of the reasons include:
- established production techniques were applied to the process of building software systems. What is now known in software circles as the Waterfall model was/is an established technique. The figure below is from the 1956 paper Production of Large Computer Programs by Herbert Benington (Winston Royce’s 1970 paper has become known as the paper that introduced Waterfall, but the contents actually propose adding iterations to what Royce treats as an established process):
- management do not appreciate how quickly requirements can change (at least until they have experience of application development). In the 1980s, when microcomputers were first being adopted by businesses, I had many conversations with domain experts who were novice programmers building their first application for their business/customers. They were invariably surprised by the rate at which requirements changed, as development progressed.
While in public the issue lurked in the shadows, my experience is that projects claiming to be using Waterfall invariably had back-channel iterations, and requirements were traded, i.e., drop those and add these. Pre-Internet, any schedule involving more than two releases a year could be claimed to be making frequent releases.
Managers claimed to be using Waterfall because it was what everybody else did (yes, some used it because it was the most effective technique for their situation, and on some new projects it may still be the most effective technique).
Now that the issue of rapidly evolving requirements is out of the closet, what’s to stop Agile, in some form, being widely used when ‘rapidly evolving’ needs to be handled?
Discussion around Agile focuses on customers and developers, with middle management not getting much of a look-in. Companies using Agile don’t have many layers of management. Switching to Agile results in a lot of power shifting from middle management to development teams, in fact, these middle managers now look surplus to requirements. No manager is going to support switching to a development approach that makes them redundant.
Adam Yuret has another theory for why Agile won’t spread within enterprises. Making developers the arbiters of maximizing customer value prevents executives mandating new product features that further their own agenda, e.g., adding features that their boss likes, but have little customer demand.
The management incentives against using Agile in practice does not prevent claims being made about using Agile.
Now that Agile is what everybody claims to be using, managers who don’t want to stand out from the crowd find a way of being part of the community.
How did Agile become the product development zeitgeist?
From the earliest days of computing, people/groups have proposed software development techniques, and claiming them to be effective/productive ways of building software systems. Agile escaped this well of widely unknowns to become the dominant umbrella term for a variety of widely used software development methodologies (I’m talking about the term Agile, not any of the multitude of techniques claiming to be the true Agile way). How did this happen?
The Agile Manifesto was published in 2001, just as commercial use of the Internet was going through its exponential growth phase.
During the creation of a new market, as the Internet then was, there are no established companies filling the various product niches; being first to market provides an opportunity for a company to capture and maintain a dominate market share. Having a minimal viable product, for customers to use today, is critical.
In a fast-growing market, product functionality is likely to be fluid until good enough practices are figure out, i.e., there is a lack of established products whose functionality new entrants need to match or exceed.
The Agile Manifesto’s principles of early, continuous delivery, and welcoming of changing requirements are great strategic advice for building products in a new fast-growing market.
Now, I’m not saying that the early Internet based companies were following a heavy process driven approach, discovered Agile and switched to this new technique. No.
I’m claiming that the early Internet based companies were releasing whatever they had, with a few attracting enough customers to fund further product development. Based on customer feedback, or not, support was added for what were thought to be useful new features. If the new features kept/attracted customers, the evolution of the product could continue. Did these companies describe their development process as throw it at the wall and see what sticks? Claiming to be following sound practices, such as doing Agile, enables a company to appear to be in control of what they are doing.
The Internet did more than just provide a new market, it also provided a mechanism for near instantaneous zero cost product updates. The time/cost of burning thousands of CDs and shipping them to customers made continuous updates unrealistic, pre-Internet. Low volume shipments used to be made to important customers (when developing a code generator for a new computer, I sometimes used to receive OS updates on a tape, via the post-office).
The Agile zeitgeist comes from its association with many, mostly Internet related, successful software projects.
While an Agile process works well in some environments (e.g., when the development company can decide to update the software, because they run the servers), it can be problematic in others.
Agile processes are dependent on customer feedback, and making updates available via the Internet does not guarantee that customers will always install the latest version. Building software systems under contract, using an Agile process, only stands a chance of reaping any benefits when the customer is a partner in the same process, e.g., not using a Waterfall approach like the customer did in the Surrey police SIREN project.
Agile was in the right place at the right time.
Median system cpu clock frequency over last 15 years
We are all familiar with graphs showing the growth of cpu clock frequency over time. The data for these plots is based on vendor announcements listing the characteristics of their latest products, and invariably focuses on the product which is the fastest or contains the most transistors or the lowest power consumption.
Some customers buy the cpu with the highest/most/lowest, but many are happy to pay less for, for good enough. What does a graph of average customer cpu clock frequency over time look like?
Vendors sometimes publish general sales figures, but I have never seen one broken down by clock frequency. However, a few sites collect user system data, including:
- A subset of the Linux Counter project data is available. This does not contain explicit date information, but a must-be-later-than date can be inferred from the listed Linux kernel version,
- Hardware for BSD has data going back to December 2014, but there is no obvious way to extract it (I have not tried that hard),
- the BSDstats project (variable website availability) has been collecting data on machines running some derivative of BSD since August 2008; it contains around 200 times more cpu data than the known Linux Counter data. While the raw data is not available, approximately monthly reports are available on the Wayback Machine.
A BSDstats cpu history was obtained using waybackpack to download the available stored cpu summary pages, followed by html2text, and an awk script to extract the cpu frequency/count data.
BSDstats obtains the cpu information via a call to the sysctl command. For many Intel processors, but not AMD processors, the returned string includes the frequency (to see your cpu information on Linux systems type: more /proc/cpu), for instance:
Celeron(R) CPU 2.80GHz | 336 Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz | 258 Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz | 170 Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+ | 43 Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+ | 28 Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+ | 27 |
For simplicity, only those rows containing frequency information were used in this analysis; 67% of the strings explicitly included a frequency (this saved me having to build a table to map AMD cpu strings to their corresponding frequency).
The plot below shows median cpu frequency (in red), along with the top/bottom 10% cpu frequencies, based on the Wayback Machine’s copy of the webpage on a given date, for a total of 2,304,446 cpu identities (code+data):
Broadly, the plot shows that cpu frequencies have essentially remained unchanged since 2008, with systems running BSD having a median frequency of 2.5 GHz, with 10% of systems having a frequency over 3.5 GHz, and 10% of systems a frequency below 1.5 GHz.
I was surprised at how many different frequencies were present in the data; often over 50. A look at the large number of different versions of Intel x86 cpus suggests that this is to be expected.
How representative is this sample of BSD systems, compared to the many more systems running Linux and Windows?
This begs the question of what kinds of environments are being compared. Are these desktop systems, local or hosted clusters, cloud systems?
The plot below shows the total number of cpus summarised on each Wayback Machine snapshot (code+data):
A few thousand systems are likely to be personal desktop systems, while the tens of thousands are likely to be clusters or small cloud providers.
Pointers to more data, particularly pre-2000, most welcome.
Documentation as a signal of program size
Developers and researchers invariably measure program size in lines of code, while senior managers measure by resources consumed per accounting period, e.g., money and people.
What size signals are visible to the users of a program?
Before CDs became generally available at the start of the 1990s, software for desktop computers was delivered on floppy discs that did not have the capacity to hold documentation (i.e., 128K to 1.4M), which was distributed in printed book form.
For instance, the first version of Turbo Pascal came with one 5¼ floppy (the compiler+IDE occupied 28K) and a 276-page reference manual.
Today, people are familiar with the intangible nature of software. In previous ages, people wanted to see and feel something for their money, and printed manuals were the substance they received (some products attached the floppies inside the back covers). Physical manuals were also thought to reduce software piracy (when CDs arrived, there was lots of hand-wringing over including electronic manuals).
Microsoft Windows bucked the trend, distributed with almost no physical paper, but many floppies; 13 3½ floppies for the initial upgrade to Windows 95, and 26 for Service Release 2 (oh, the fun of spending an afternoon swapping disks to rebuild a machine). Microsoft Office 97 standard edition was available on 45 floppies, the professional edition on 55.
The problem with distributing manuals in printed book form is that updates are costly; customers need a whole new book and the existing inventory needs to be scrapped. Documentation for Mainframe/Minicomputer/Workstations came in ring binders, allowing updates on an individual page basis. The Sun 4 that arrived at my office (to have a COBOL code generator written for the SPARC cpu) came with around 3-feet of ring binders. I have seen offices with a wall of shelves filled with vendor ring binders.
Is there any correlation between a project’s lines of code and pages of it’s documentation?
Most developers hate writing documentation; readmes don’t count. This means that only (well) funded development projects are likely to pay for an author to produce some amount of non-trivial documentation (a widely used application eventually attracts an external author interested in explaining things). Some Open source projects do contain files believed to be documentation; documentation research is primarily focused on accuracy (see section 6.4.4).
The only data I am aware of containing LOC, documentation page counts, and development man months is the 1979 paper The Characteristics of Large Systems by Belady and Lehman, which lists values for 37 “… independent programs developed in a large software house.” How much of the documentation was user focused, requirements+business logic, or developer focused? I have no idea (a fitted regression model, code+data, shows an almost linear relationship between LOC and document pages). Tests are not broken out as a separate item (code, documentation, not recorded?)
The plot below shows delivered: source lines of code, documentation pages, and total man months, x/y-axis both using log scales (code+data):
The total man months of implementation for each project is taken up by writing the code and documentation. The following equation is a good fit (explaining just 80% of the variance; code+data): 
, but is only slightly better than 
. Given the high correlation between 
and 
, including both in the same model is probably not a good idea (the equation: 
explains just over 50% of the variance).
There are a few possible outliers in the data. Perhaps removing these would make the picture clearer.
For me, what stands out, compared to today’s projects, is the relatively low DSLOC (a few tens of thousands) and high pages of documentation (thousands). Projects could be smaller/simpler in the 1970s because they were often replacing humans doing the work, not previously written systems; or, perhaps projects were limited by available computer memory, often well less than a megabyte. Perhaps I think the page count is high because I don’t have an accurate idea of how much online documentation is created these days.
Recent Comments