> I have serious doubts about the quality of your "systematic observation and study of hundreds of test cases".

You still haven't provided your basis for positions, and you're still littering your responses with assumptions or accusations.

> I don't believe at all that you've been systematically tracking which of your programmers are history buffs and how it correlates to performance.

You are mistaken. When, out of hundreds of hires, a handful match the criteria, it's easy to look back at data collected at hiring time, and find out if there are correlations (not causations).

> I think you're a history buff and so you assume that it must correlate meaningfully, just as programmers who are into music, or art, or whatever else do.

Wrong. History isn't a primary interest. I enjoy a variety of things more. I believe most are unrelated to ability to architect software.

> No number of developers is enough to turn offhand observation into meaningful correlation. That would require measuring and tracking. It would require more than your gut feeling and confirmation bias.

See above. Your assumption was mistaken.

> I frankly find it worrisome that you actively choose history majors over CS majors for development work. That says nothing to me except that you have a personal bias.

Prefering to hire a History major with a minor in CS over a pure CS major typically results in better rounded individuals more capable of software architecture, dealing with clients, and collaborating with peers. Unfortunately, out of hundreds of hires, again, only a handful have fit that bill. But none of those who did fit that bill, had to be let go.

This was data collected at interview time, and in fact, on the first such individuals, I was as skeptical as you. Looking back at the collected hiring data about outperformers revealed this correlation. Since then, I've confirmed this curious correlation with several peers.

> I stand by my statement that you must be writing small programs if you're willing to print them in entirety on paper.

Again, your assume that I was printing the large programs. I was not. I was invovled with software developed and used by scientific research organizations, hospitals, and universities. They would hand me a box of fan-fold paper (once even on a hand truck), and say, "Here's the code." I found learning the overall picture faster reading through the stack than scrolling the code on a CRT, particularly thanks to the ability to use a highlighter and Post-Its.

Today, when confronted with a similar task, I prefer an iPad and a good reader with markup tools.

> As for code reviews in the 80s, the value is in the review. Whether it's printed on paper or not isn't really very meaningful. It can be nice to have a paper copy sometimes, but it's just that, nice. It's not really a substantive change.

Given today's technology, mostly agreed. However, research suggests tangible artifacts cement concepts more firmly in our organic brains than digital exposure alone.

> And yes, this history argument is extremely tangential. You did not start with that. You started by saying that you used to spend compile times reviewing the printed code. That has nothing to do with being a history buff. Someone could love doing paper code reviews and hate reading about history. And any link that might exist was certainly not established before you transitioned into talking about history buffs being good architects.

You're right, I didn't bring up history first, I brought up the concept of understanding "a map of the whole". To me, that equates closely with a long multifaceted narrative. You brought up the inability to hold a few pages of code in one's head, and I countered with literature and history. Both code and history are something like the Bayeux Tapestry, where the local is most useful when understood in context of the whole. Come to think of it, the word for our oldest long historical texts, and for what you do reviewing code on a the screen, are the same: scroll.

My ravioli's done baking. Enjoyed the discussion. Cheers.