From another thought-experiment-y perspective:

Say you have problem A to solve. Then either one of those is true:

1) it has been solved before, ergo by virtue of software having a zero cost of copying (contrary to, say, a nail, a car, or a bridge), so there is no actual problem to be solved.

2) it hasn't been solved before, ergo it is a new problem, and thus at any moment you may turn a stone and discover something that was not foreseen (whether they are rabbits, yaks, bikesheds, dragons, or what have you eldritch horrors) and thus of unknown cost.

Any task that cannot be obviously fit into one or the other can nonetheless be split into an assembly of both.

Thus any attempt at estimates is as futile as gambling to win, tasks are only ever done when they're done, and "successful estimators" are kings of retconning.

It's all make-believe.

▲

zffr 20 hours ago | parent [-]

I was with you until this part:

> Thus any attempt at estimates is as futile as gambling to win, tasks are only ever done when they're done, and "successful estimators" are kings of retconning.

> It's all make-believe.

Software estimates are not futile or make believe. They are useful even if they are not always precise. That’s why the industry continues to use them.

	▲	kragen 16 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This argument proves too much: "Bloodletting is not futile or make believe. It is useful even if the patient does not always survive. That's why physicians continue to use it." "Trial by ordeal is not futile or make believe. It is useful even if sometimes Inquisitors reach mistaken conclusions. That's why Inquisitors continue to use it." "Lottery-number-picking systems are not futile or make believe. They are useful even if some players never win. That's why players continue to use them." It is a fully general argument which, if correct, would demonstrate that no practice that had continued for a period of time could ever be ineffective or counterproductive.
	▲	bonesss 15 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The amount of tap dancing and philosophizing some developers are willing to do to dodge estimates is hilarious. It’s a skill… a basic part and critical part of engineering. IME the common thread between objectors is that they haven’t made a consistent effort to improve — developing, iterating, and refining their estimation process over time. Yeah, every line of code is a unique snowflake piece of undefinable research the universe has never seen, equally unknowable and inscrutably enigmatic. But the workers at EngiCorp building EngiCorp products using EngiCorp project routines and resources first, second, and third quarter of 2025 are literal world experts at EngiCorp outcomes. They very reasonably should be able to estimate EngiCorp work in Q4, and account for EngiCorp realities, providing maps of future costs that can drive EngiCorp process improvement and investment. If I ask for a decking estimate and get back sophistry and smug incompetence, I’m not talking with a super skilled professional deck builder. Doesn’t matter how they hammer, saw, or draw.
	▲	Sammi 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Software estimates are not futile or make believe. They are useful even if they are not always precise. That’s why the industry continues to use them. The industry continues to fail when trying to use them. They have negative usefulness.