James Shore Messed Up with Math

James Shore messed up with math. Look at article "Quality With a Name":

Design quality = developer time / change

Translated to plain English: "Design quality is proportional to Developer time", or "the more time we spend to make a change, the higher is the design quality". James, you don't mean it, do you?

But forget the math. Read the article, it is a good read: mature, lived out thoughts on software design. I may disagree with some definitions, but he is dead right on fundamentals.

Mainly, James was looking something better then "Quality Without a Name". He nailed it down:

A good software design minimizes the time required to create, modify, and maintain the software while achieving acceptable run-time performance. This definition, and the conclusions it leads to, are the most important things I keep in mind when considering a design. I have some core design principles I follow, true. I also have some techniques that are useful for the languages I work with. But I'm willing to throw them away--even the so-called "universal truths"--if I think that they get in the way of reducing developer time.

Enjoy reading the article (and skip Measuring Design Quality, the math there is messed up).