MS's new book on Software Factories....

Because the project (Virtual Interaction Configuration) is done in 
python and in support of FOSS

http://msdn.microsoft.com/architecture/overview/softwarefactories/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnmaj/html/aj3softfac.asp

"According to the Standish Group [Sta94], businesses in the United 
States spend around $250 billion on software development each year on 
approximately 175,000 projects. Only 16 percent of these projects finish 
on schedule and within budget. Another 31 percent are cancelled, mainly 
due to quality problems, for losses of about $81 billion. Another 53 
percent exceed their budgets by an average of 189 percent, for losses of 
about $59 billion. Projects reaching completion deliver an average of 
only 42 percent of the originally planned features."

and text regarding industrialization (engineering)..

Interesting how they use the same figures and refer to the same issue of 
 industrialization as I covered 8 years ago on one of my first web pages.

From http://threeseas.net/mind/vic-objective.html

"PROBLEMS IMPORTANT TO SOLVE

Attention Getting Points

------ FROM ------
COMDEX SPRING and WINDOWS WORLD 95
Power Panel - "What's Wrong with Software Development"
** In The U.S. Only **

$81 Billion = 31% of software development gets cancelled before complete

$59 Billion = 53% of software development has cost over-runs of 189%

16% success - project success and failure ratio

61% customer requested features and functions make it in

Maintenance and repair is where most of the U.S. dollars are going,
instead of new, better, easier to use software.

[snipped out some of my own observations from being there - see link
*** Especially if you read 
http://www.theserverside.net/talks/library.tss#KeithShort ]

------ AND FROM ------
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN - Sept. 1994
Article - "Software's Chronic Crisis"

The article covers much the same ground as the above but with a focus 
and flavor of the magazine. The article also goes more into solution 
efforts with software development on large scale projects. But finding 
consistent solutions are still hard to come by.

Mass-produced PC products makes up less than 10% of the $92.8 billion 
U.S. software market.

Mary M. Shaw of Carnegie Mellon University, observes a parallel between 
chemical engineering evolution and software engineering evolution. 
However, this evolution has not made the connection between science and 
commercialization required to establish a consistent experimental 
foundation for professional software engineering.
---------------------

They also refer to several other issues I have as well covered.
Such as levels of abstraction.. http://www.threeseas.net/mind/KNMVIC.html

I've posted about this and related issues before but now MS is talking 
along the same lines and I'm not supprised as I understand their 
longhorn and patent grab intent ... and have publicly stated these 
things if you just search the internet. I don't claim MS is in any way 
original, but we all know they take from others and claim ownership...

http://weblogs.asp.net/jnadal/archive/2003/10/29/34413.aspx
----------
 # re: Codename "MONAD"  10/31/2003 12:34 PM  3seas

Ok, what to many fail to understand is the sum total and what it means, 
that MS is working towards.

The Common Language Infrastructure (CLI #2) is a sum of most all 
programming concepts and datatypes then integrated into a 
non-conflicting package so that most any language can be translated into 
the Common Intermediate Language (CIL) and run on a run time engine. 
This unifies all programming languages. But also another part of .NET is 
that of Inter-Process Communications (IPC) and there is also direction 
towards standardized GUI functionality. Then Add in this Commandline 
Interface (CLI #1)...

(CLI #1) + (GUI) + (IPC) = the three primary UIs which is like paint 
having three primary colors, for which you can create any color in the 
spectrum. Take away one and you greatly limit what you can do... ok..
using these three primary UIs in processing the (CLI #2) it becomes 
possible and probable that an autocoding environment can and will be 
developed.

additionally by adding a voice to text interface to the CLI #1 you can 
achieve the ability of the end user/consumer to ask for a program to be 
created and the system will do it.

by patenting it..... all your base will be owned by MS... do a google 
search in "autocoding" and be sure to set aside any arrogance and 
ignorance you may and probably do have.
---------

The following information represents what is probably the best of what 
is available thru the Web on the subject of autocoding. (via google)

HIRTS DARP Working Group on Autocoding, 18th, 19th April 2000
http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/hise/darp/pdf/autocoding.pdf
(Brings up various issues which will help you focus in on what
"autocoding" is and what some of the issues to solve, are.)

The follow up to the above is:
May 8th thru 10th, 2001 "DARP HIRTS Workshop" paper by Jakob Engblom:
http://www.artes.uu.se/mobility/reports/hirts_report1.0.pdf
(See pages 5-6 section 3.2.5 The Use of Tools in Aerospace)

This link no longer works but.. available on paper
http://www.artes.uu.se/mobility/reports/

In summary, Though autocoding is being used to some extent, it is a
future hope, since in general it has a bug density which is an order of
a magnititude lower than manual code.  Point being is that this is
leading edge stuff, an opportunity for OSS to shine.

To help show why I believe OSS efforts can shine when it comes to such a
project as Autocoding:

QinetiQ - Analysis of the Impact of Open Source Software
http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/interoperability/egif_document.asp?docnum=430
link changed I think to:
http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/QinetiQ_OSS_rep.pdf

and From the Conference on the Public Domain, Nov. 9-11. 2001 at Duke 
Law School "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm" by 
Yochai Benkler: http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/Coase%27s_Penguin.pdf

Automating what was done manually requires the identification of, and
ability to apply, the manual action set we use, but have the computer do
it. A USPTO Published comment introducing these identified actions and
suggestions of how they may be applied, including autocoding, is here:
http://www.threeseas.net/mind/KNMVIC.html

Now it seems that the core problem not only I but MS is running into is 
resistance from coders...

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/08/1724209&tid=185&tid=187&tid=8
and the page ratings of the MS link (first link in body of this post)
and http://www.theserverside.net/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=27697

Anyway, since there are those controlling python coders that don't like 
me....  thought I'd post this. And to the GNU group.... Sorry RMS, but 
software just ain't free untill anyone can easily create or cause the 
computer to create it for them... for FREE... And real software 
engineers that believe in the Free Software Foundation, FOSS, GPL, etc..
will understand this...