Motivation of software professionals
in [Dot Net]
|
From: Richard Bos on 17 Feb 2010 09:38 Lew <noone(a)lewscanon.com> wrote: > Michael Foukarakis wrote: > > How can anybody ignore this? Do more people have to die for us to > > start educating software engineers about responsibility, liability, > > consequences? Right now, CS students learn that an error in their > > program is easily solved by adding carefully placed printf()'s or > > running inside a debugger, and that the worst consequence if the TA > > discovers a bug in their project solution is maybe 1/10 lesson > > credits. > > You say that like the developers were at fault. I cannot tell you how many > times I've seen management overrule developers who wanted to make things > right. It's been the overwhelming majority, though. I recall a manager in > 1982 refusing to let a team fix the Y2K bug in the project. I've seen that - _my_ manager, in _my_ fix in _my_ program - in 1995. Three years later he thought that it would be a good idea for me to start paying attention to this Y2K thing he'd just heard about. And then there's the users. Don't get me started on the users. Richard
From: Richard Bos on 17 Feb 2010 09:38 Flash Gordon <smap(a)spam.causeway.com> wrote: > I know there is software flying around today that is running on Z80 > processors (well, the military variant of them) and the plan in the late > 90s was for it to continue for another 20 years (I don't know the > details, but a customer signed off on some form of ongoing support > contract). Admittedly the software I used was not doing date processing > (apart from the test rigs, which used the date on printouts, which I > tested to "destruction" which turned out to be 2028). Single signed byte? Richard
From: Lars Enderin on 17 Feb 2010 10:07 Richard Bos wrote: > Flash Gordon <smap(a)spam.causeway.com> wrote: > >> I know there is software flying around today that is running on Z80 >> processors (well, the military variant of them) and the plan in the late >> 90s was for it to continue for another 20 years (I don't know the >> details, but a customer signed off on some form of ongoing support >> contract). Admittedly the software I used was not doing date processing >> (apart from the test rigs, which used the date on printouts, which I >> tested to "destruction" which turned out to be 2028). > > Single signed byte? Was it really 2028? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem.
From: Richard Heathfield on 17 Feb 2010 10:14 Lars Enderin wrote: > Richard Bos wrote: >> Flash Gordon <smap(a)spam.causeway.com> wrote: >> >>> I know there is software flying around today that is running on Z80 >>> processors (well, the military variant of them) and the plan in the late >>> 90s was for it to continue for another 20 years (I don't know the >>> details, but a customer signed off on some form of ongoing support >>> contract). Admittedly the software I used was not doing date processing >>> (apart from the test rigs, which used the date on printouts, which I >>> tested to "destruction" which turned out to be 2028). >> Single signed byte? > > Was it really 2028? Quite possibly. Not every problem ending in 8 is a 2038 problem. If the test rigs had 1900 as a base date (and yes, there's still plenty of software around that thinks 1900 was a very good year), then the single signed byte Richard Bos mentioned would be good for representing all years from then until 2027 (assuming 8 bits to the byte). It would fail in 2028, quite possibly giving the year as 1772 instead. -- Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@ "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line vacant - apply within
From: Lew on 17 Feb 2010 10:15
Richard Bos wrote: > I've seen that - _my_ manager, in _my_ fix in _my_ program - in 1995. > Three years later he thought that it would be a good idea for me to > start paying attention to this Y2K thing he'd just heard about. > > And then there's the users. Don't get me started on the users. Yeah. Our jobs would be so much easier if we only didn't have customers! Don't dis the customers, man. Having a derogatory attitude toward "users" (there are only two industries that call their customers "users") is a major arrogance. Shame on you. -- Lew |