[jcranberry]

I'm beginning to get skeptical whether you've actually read the paper. It is not making a silver bullet claim or denying the forecast originally present in No Silver Bullet. If so, it would be asserting some way to significantly reduce or completely remove essential complexity. It instead attempts to find a minimal definition of essential complexity, and proposes a method to mitigate the cost of non-essential complexity. It is supplementary to No Silver Bullet, not a refutation of it.

Not to mention what observations are you talking about? Because I'm not too aware of any tarpit inspired languages/development frameworks, let alone an actual FRP framework.

[pron]

> It is not making a silver bullet claim or denying the forecast originally present in No Silver Bullet.

The paper's response to Brooks's central assumption, which leads to his prediction is, and I quote the full sentence, "We disagree."

It is an interesting opinion piece but it is entirely "Aristotelian".

> Because I'm not too aware of any tarpit inspired languages/development frameworks, let alone an actual FRP framework.

Different languages and frameworks have adopted different parts, usually the more practical ones. None proved to be a silver bullet.

[jcranberry]

The actual quote.

>Following Brooks we distinguish accidental from essential diculty, but disagree with his premise that most complexity remaining in contemporary systems is essential

There's no silver bullet claim.

[pron]

It very much is a silver bullet claim (following Brooks's definition). But here's the quote I was referring to, in context:

> Brooks asserts ... that the majority... of the complexity that we find in contemporary large systems is of the essential type. We disagree.

That means a silver bullet is possible (against Brooks's claim), and then they go on to describe what they think is a particular silver bullet.