Motivation of software professionals
in [Dot Net]
|
From: Arved Sandstrom on 11 Feb 2010 04:07 Brian wrote: > On Feb 10, 4:18 pm, James Kanze <james.ka...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 10, 10:03 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...(a)btinternet.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 10, 1:02 am, John Koy <John....(a)example.com> wrote:> >>> Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>>> As long as we disclaim all liability and give no warranties >>>> for the solutions/products we build, SD cannot be an >>>> engineering field and the term "software engineer" remains >>>> as an oxymoron. >>> Basically no-one knows how to built bug-free software, so the >>> lability exclusions are necessary. >> Basically no one knows how to build 100% bug-free anything. >> Witness Toyota. Globally, in fact, you can probably do better >> with software than with most other things. And I've never >> worked on a project where there have been liability exclusions >> (which probably aren't legal anyway). > > > Software from Ebenezer Enterprises is free. I think only > an idiot would attempt to sue us for a problem they find > in the software. I think the same things goes for Boost. > I don't think they've ever been sued for defects. > > > Brian Wood > http://webEbenezer.net > (651) 251-9384 Free (as in beer) software brings up an interesting set of arguments. If I understand your point as being, if a product is free how can one possibly sue the maker of it for flaws in the product? Correct me if I'm wrong. I have my own thoughts on this topic but I simply want to make sure what we're discussing. AHS
From: Dancing Fingers on 11 Feb 2010 04:21 For me, a non-pro, it's like solving a crossword puzzle. You're trying but can't quite figure it out. But when you finally do it's a huge rush and you can't wait for more. OMG I'm addicted to programming -- my wife was right. Chrizs
From: Nick Keighley on 11 Feb 2010 04:30 On 10 Feb, 10:42, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 12:29 pm, Arved Sandstrom <dces...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > In other words, we have adequate processes available but tend not to > > adopt them. And _then_ because the products are seriously flawed we > > disclaim liability because the products are in poor shape. > > > We need to get pushed from the outside, by purchasers of our software. > > Unfortunately that hasn't happened. > > Software management is not so stupid. sometimes it is. Sometimes quality is seen as being too expensive. The cost of a pissed off customer isn't always factored in. > If adequate procedures were > available that could ensure bug-free software, at reasonable cost and > time, they they would have been adopted. they are available, they do have reasonable cost (in many fields) and they have been adopted. Telecommunication systems mostly invisibly work. There's a good reason for this. > Except in a few areas > customers would soon shy away from 'no warrantry including the implied > warrantry of suitability for any particular purpose' products. we've pretty well brain washed the consumer to accept this as reasonable. > The fact is that many many formal methods are in existence. Some of > them might work, to some extent, and in some circumstances. But none > have really proved themselves when it comes to the acid test of > developing real software for non-trivial projects. talk to the telcommunications people, talk to the military, talk to avionics and space, talk to automotive (ok, bad example!).
From: Phil Carmody on 11 Feb 2010 05:05 James Kanze <james.kanze(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Feb 10, 10:38 am, Michael Foukarakis <electricde...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Feb 10, 12:03 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...(a)btinternet.com> >> wrote:> On Feb 10, 1:02 am, John Koy <John....(a)example.com> >> wrote:> Arved Sandstrom wrote: > >> > > As long as we disclaim all liability and give no >> > > warranties for the solutions/products we build, SD cannot >> > > be an engineering field and the term "software engineer" >> > > remains as an oxymoron. > >> > Basically no-one knows how to built bug-free software, so >> > the lability exclusions are necessary. > >> Nobody knows how to build earthquake-immune buildings, yet >> engineers give certain guarantees. When those are failed to be >> met, (s)he is held liable. Maybe it's about time some >> "software engineers" were held liable for their unreliable >> code in the same way. > > They are. That's why independent contractors have liability > insurance. In that case they're *not* liable for their unreliable code. Phil -- Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1
From: Seebs on 11 Feb 2010 09:10
On 2010-02-11, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Here's the thing: the main reason for having the codes of conduct, > required education and certifications, professional associations, > regulated professional development, legal guarantees and so forth, is to > prove to the consumer (employer of software developers, purchaser of > computer software etc) with a reasonable degree of assurance that they > are getting a known, reliable quantity, whether that be an employee or a > product. All that stuff is there is to help regulate the market in > software professionals and software itself, so that the consumer is not > flying in the dark when it comes to choosing services and products. I don't believe that they can do this, because the key measures of quality are sufficiently orthogonal to anything we know how to test that it simply doesn't work out that way. I'd almost certainly fail any coherently-specified certification, because my memory's like a sieve, so any check as to whether I know even basic things will discover that, well, no, I don't. It's very hard to develop a test you can administer for "knows how to look things up" or "knows whether or not he knows something". Furthermore, I very much dislike the notion of the software industry becoming afflicted with the kind of thing that many engineering professions, or the legal profession, have, where certification becomes a way for groups doing certification to make a ton of money preventing people from doing work unless they pay the group a ton of money. Right now, any old person can try to put software up on the internet. I would not want to see that change, but I do not have any confidence that a "professional organization" would be willing or able to refrain from doing so over time. It is the nature of such organizations (like any other human institution) to seek ever-broader power and influence. > Such a system also protects the true software development professionals. Some, but it may protect other people from getting the experience they would need to *become* true software development professionals. Had I needed a certification to start doing stuff, I would never have made it. > You're quite right in a narrow sense. If you are talking about the 10% > of developers who try, and the 10% of software shops that get it, and > the 10% of software that is truly quality stuff, they don't need the > extra push or the regulations. But the other 90% do. I think the harm they'd do in the boundary cases is pretty severe, though, and essentially irreparable, while we've found somewhat survivable ways for employers who care about quality to obtain it if they want it. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! |