[turtleyacht]

Thank-you for the insight. The related articles would be worth further reading.

> development system has been used at various companies

Is there a name for it?

What resources could point us to the idea of "software as engineering?"

The words "equipment log" and "work product" sound pretty unique. Maybe older books address this.

Are Erl's SOA books and Yourdon's on OOP still relevant?

[sbellware]

Erl and Yourdon's books are definitely still relevant, but they have to be put into historical context and historical perspective at this point in order to extract the enduring value that they have.

I wouldn't literally build a SOA system the way that it was done back in the mid-2000s, so I know what to disregard in a legacy SOA book, and what to give attention to. Same for an OO book from the 90s. But without having that sense of history, and a fluency in fundamentals and principles, the necessary background that puts these books into context and makes them useful today would simply be missing.

It's not uncommon for developers to pick up a "classic" software book and come away with all of the wrong ideas.

[hmeh]

sbellware may have more to add, but there isn't a name for it. We focus more on the "it" than the branding of it. We do use the word "continuity" to describe our goal: https://github.com/aaronjensen/software-development/blob/mas...

> The words "equipment log" and "work product" sound pretty unique.

We call them "material logs", as equipment logs are more or less a subset of those. Just think about the sheet in every bathroom at a store that says when it was last cleaned, or the clipboard attached to the factory machine that lists its maintenance record and problems. Or the patient record outside of the patient's door.

"work product" just means, the product of our work. Nothing special about that one, I don't think.

> Are Erl's SOA books and Yourdon's on OOP still relevant?

I haven't read either, personally, though I have Yourdon's book en route. We use the term "structural design" quite a bit, so I'm curious to see Yourdon's take on what they call "structured design". From everything I've read about it, it sounds very similar to a lot of how we think about things as it seems to be the basis for much of the coupling and cohesion thought in our industry.

I'd also recommend studying Lean (not Lean Startup, which has much to do with Lean as non-fat yogurt does).

[sbellware]

Right. We don't name the methodology. If we did, people who claim to be "doing it" by mentioning the name of the thing. It's the individual practices that are talked about, and that's on-purpose. We can't afford to have the system of practices be obscured by the kind of grasping at status that can come from being able to claim something by name. It's a means of protecting the methodology itself from decay, and from protecting the people on the team from the shallowness that inevitably making something "a thing".