|
Chris Maunder wrote: Fixed this and the whole house of cards came crashing down in a fiery J.J. Abrams Micheal Bay style ball of flame.
You should have copied and pasted dandy72's correction. He spelt Michael Bay correctly, you didn't.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Well spotted sir
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
I am guessing there were no UnitTests for the old javascript code that should have worked almost unchanged for the converted Typescript code?
Or the UnitTests worked because they ran the old code?
|
|
|
|
|
Oh you crazy kids and your crazy ideas about "unit tests" and "testing before you deploy".
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
That one time where I got contrived indexed string operations right off the bat, I screamed in joy. The couple co-workers looking at me strangely applauded when told what's going on.
|
|
|
|
|
Has this last week with javascript.
"Odd, it's still working, despite purposely breaking code?"
|
|
|
|
|
"Which software development methodologies do you use?"
What I think has been lost in all the noise of so-called methodologies is the total disregard for quality. And by that I mean simple things like DRY principle and even correct spelling (particularly customer facing UI's).
We speak of passion for software development, but where is the passion for doing something well? I don't mean perfect, but the code I so often encounter just screams "I clearly don't give a sh*t."
These methodologies, they don't address any of this. Where in these methodologies is "show that you care about your work?" It doesn't exist.
Maybe I should create a Care-Bear[^] Methodology and write a "care meter" plugin for VS. 
Latest Article - A 4-Stack rPI Cluster with WiFi-Ethernet Bridging
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I don't mean perfect, but the code I so often encounter just screams "I clearly don't give a sh*t."
These methodologies, they don't address any of this.
Totally agree.
I believe you may find that the answer is related to what I call : Assembly-Line Programming
Very many devs are writing only one small piece of anything they are building.
This means you churn out your piece and someone else has the whole in mind. You don't care.
It's just like the old Automobile lines. Screw on 3 bolts and let it go down the line. 3 bolts! 3 bolts! 3 bolts! Screw it, I'm tired today, 2 bolts! 2 bolts!!
It is a human condition thing that is difficult to weed out in these large projects. Large projects where you are only one small little piece make you feel like you are accomplishing basically nothing. it's a human problem.
However, those of us who create maybe the entire Software Product from end-to-end and even write the documentation and are completely "responsible" get a totally different experience from it. That's where the real energy comes from.
But, how to do this on a large project!?! I'm not sure.
EDIT
And often on big projects you attempt to tell someone, "uh, I don't think this is going quite right." And they tell you, "Dont rock the boat, you trouble-maker. Sit down, shut up and get your bolts on!!"
On end-to-end projects, you better get it right. You're the only one and you better rock the boat a lot.
Edit 2
The word I always use to sum all of this up is: Ownership!
Edit 3
This is also what the Agile Manifesto means by :
Agile Manifesto Principle: The best architectures, requirements, and designs
emerge from self-organizing teams.
It means you go out and find people who are engaged in the process and you "contract" them to build and own a particular piece. This is self-organizing team where each individual cares deeply about what s/he is building and owns it completely.
However, teams are not created this way in BigCorp. They just give you devs or DBAs or whatever to do something (screw on a bolt).
modified 11-Jul-19 9:36am.
|
|
|
|
|
Well put!
Technician
1. A person that fixes stuff you can't.
2. One who does precision guesswork based on unreliable data provided by those of questionable knowledge.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Very well put, and it doesn't apply to just software.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is it that quality is too expensive, and we live in a world where quality software just isn't very important anymore.
So what if there is problems in the software, we can roll out a patch within 24 hours.
It's not like the old days where you have to get it near perfect first time because the cost of a patch was just too expensive.
The most obvious example of this is with video games. It used to be that the game had to work first time and needed testing to death, because nobody wanted the costs of a recall. Whereas today, they ship games before they are even finished and then release a "day one" patch in time for release/delivery day.
In short, there just isn't enough consequence to releasing bugs anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
musefan wrote: In short, there just isn't enough consequence to releasing bugs anymore.
Very good post!! You are totally spot on with that.
Back in the day when you had to ship 3.5" floppies, you had to get it right!!
|
|
|
|
|
And in my experience didn't, wait for release beta before use...
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: you had to ship 3.5" floppies
Such a youngster!
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like DRHuff (above) said 'such a youngster'. Back when I was working mainframes, in order to do a patch I had to book a plane, take the patch tapes to each TRADOC (12 or 13 I think) site, install, test, then re-train the users in the changes. Generally figured a week at each site.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
stoneyowl2 wrote: Generally figured a week at each site
Those were the days when you could get out of your cubicle! Now you're stuck in the grey walls and all you have is the Internet. 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, now I am (semi) retired, and my cubicle is a spare bedroom. The walls have my own paintings on them, and I listen to music as loud as I want 
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good story of the old days. 
I remember those tricks of versioning. No one trusted 1.0 etc.
After that we all knew versioning was just a lie anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of mandatory: A startup's codebase | CommitStrip[^]
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
In those days MSDN came in a wheel barrow.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: In those days MSDN came in a wheel barrow.
Back then, the entire MSDN library fit on a single CD. They would send quarterly updates through the mail. In the days before Google, it was a resource that I depended on, along with whatever books I bought on my own.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
While I think this is true for the most part, it also largely depends on your line of work. My software runs machines that produce a LOT of product every day. I hear about nearly every hiccup it has because it costs the company money and that is very consequential to a lot of people and their wallets. Me included.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah that makes sense. It was more of a general point, I think there is still some areas where software needs to be perfect, such as financial and medical etc. just because the liability of error is too great.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
We were too cheap for duplicators...it was 2 machines set up to do one at a time. 
that they may have actually installed what by then was years old buggy software. Luckily, it was at least good enough that they could see the potential and applying the latest patch was usually easy enough. One other thing that used to confuse people was that the boss at that time decided that it would look better if the versioning started at 6.x.x. 
It's a fleeting question as everything seems to be moving 'to the cloud' or web-based at least.