<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18.04.2016 12:53, Michael Schnell
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5714BCAA.6050602@lumino.de" type="cite">On
04/18/2016 12:40 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
No, the equation includes everything along with everybody's
interests.
<br>
<br>
Example:
<br>
You spend X hours to write documentation for A that saves Y
hours to Z users that otherwise had to study the code.
<br>
Then you can compare X to Y*Z.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That was my initial proposal leading to "extremely hard to
define", as (due to no intended and hence measurable revenue) the
developers don't have any idea about the count of users and the
effort they need to get their work done.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You use the word <i>define</i> wrongly. Please see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition</a> . Florian gave you the
exact definition.<br>
You probably meant it is hard to <i>estimate</i> the unknown
parameters.<br>
<br>
Furthermore, it is wrong that a user can judge better than a
developer. The quality of a judgement doesn't depend on the role of
the person.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5714BCAA.6050602@lumino.de" type="cite">
As an extreme you would say: no documentation at all is best, as
that means no hours to create it and there supposedly will be at
least a single user who is able to make some small benefit from
the project and hence the positive ratio is infinite .<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, you are wrong. The "resulting benefit" is not taken into
consideration. You compare the times you need to get to the
"resulting benefit" once without the work X (in my example "without
documentation") and once with the work X (in my example "with
documentation").<br>
<br>
Ondrej<br>
</body>
</html>