If a program doesn’t work, measures of efficiency, of adaptability, or of cost of production have no meaning. - Gerald M. Weinberg

the very first programmer, Lady Lovelace, seems to have had the idea of a programming language as a language as early as 1846. Although she was the niece of Lord Byron, it was not her knowledge of poetry but, rather, of mathematics which led her to think of a symbolic system as a language — for the idea of mathematics as a language seems to go back into the misty ages of the past. Thus, the idea of “programming language” was really born with the idea of programming itself.

Programs, like any other human-made objects, are designed — or should be designed — with a definite lifespan and scope of application in mind. Like the “Deacon’s Masterpiece,” which was “built in such a logical way it ran a hundred years to the day,” a program should have neither over-designed or under-designed parts. Yet it is an occupational disease of programmers to spend more time on those program parts that present, for some reason, the most intellectual challenge rather than on those that require the most work.

The shortsighted or insecure team leader may feel that the best way to please management is to promise them whatever they ask. But, ultimately, what the management wants is kept promises, and these can only be obtained if the team leader can win team acceptance of the promises as their goals. What the team leader must learn is that Managers — no matter how hard they press for promises — really want results. Results will be far more easily obtained if they are obtained in the pursuit of goals set with full team participation.