Motivation of software professionals
in [Java Programming]
|
From: James Kanze on 10 Feb 2010 17:31 On Feb 10, 5:43 pm, Lew <no...(a)lewscanon.com> wrote: > Arved Sandstrom 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. > Malcolm McLean wrote: > > Software management is not so stupid. If adequate procedures > > were available that could ensure bug-free software, at > > reasonable cost and time, they they would have been adopted. > > Except in a few areas > Bullshit. > Management doesn't adopt effective practices for a variety of > reasons, but the fact is that far too many projects are > managed in fashions contrary to best practices. It's a > combination of application of an inappropriate management > paradigm (factory work vs. talent work), ignorance or > disbelief of the fundamentals, mistrust of the commitment and > understanding of the developers, and a desire to keep the > process inefficient in order to collect more money. I suspect that it's often a case of management not being able to be everywhere, and the fact that marketing issues are far more important than saving a bit of money (while simultaneously improving quality) in development. > The observable fact is that software projects are managed as > though management were stupid. That's why half to two-thirds > (depending on whose figures you go by) of all major software > projects never go into production, and so many that do have > major, preventable bugs. I've often wondered where such statistics come from. Over the last twenty years, only one project I've worked on failed to go into production, and none of the others had major, preventable bugs---in at least one, the most serious bug that was found was a spelling error in a log message, and in one other case, no errors were found after delivery (but that was a very small project). > > customers would soon shy away from 'no warrantry including > > the implied warrantry of suitability for any particular > > purpose' products. > Adequate procedures are available, or haven't you been > studying the subject? > > 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. > Again, not true. Iterative development alone greatly > increases productivity and quality. Add in other elements of > agile programming, or whatever the rubric is for effective > practices these days, and you asymptotically approach > perfection. From what I've seen, "agile" programming hasn't really changed much. In fact, it's often been just a relabeling of the same old procedures. (That's a common problem with "in" labels---before agile programming, a lot of projects became "OO" overnight. With no change in procedures.) > The field of software project management is well studied and > well documented. Effective techniques are known and > published. And have been for decades. They simply are not > followed. Except where they are. I was a contractor for the last 25 or 30 years, and most of the places I worked did you more or less effective techniques. -- James Kanze
From: James Kanze on 10 Feb 2010 17:35 On Feb 10, 11:32 am, John Koy <John....(a)example.com> wrote: > Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > Malcolm McLean 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. They would be > >> commercial suicide in any other field. That doesn't mean > >> there is no such thing as software engineering, only that > >> it is new and undeveloped. Boilers used to regularly > >> explode at the beginning of the industrial revolution, now > >> such accidents are almost unheard of. > > It's not a question of bug _free_ software. There aren't any > > other fields I can think of where it's possible to get away > > with no liability simply by claiming that it's impossible to > > achieve perfection. > Exactly. Engineering is about measurable outcomes, > quantification. What's the equivalent of "this building can > withstand a quake of magnitude 7.5 for 30 seconds" in > software? A contractual indemnity for each second of downtime? (Most of the projects I've worked on have had such clauses in their contracts.) > Can any of us state "this software will stand all virus > attacks for 12 months" or "this software will not crash for 2 > years, and if it does your loss won't exceed 20% of all > digital assets managed by it" ? Most of the projects I've worked on have had clauses to the effect that "we will pay you x Euros per minute downtime". It seems to be a more or less standard clause. > We can't even guarantee that it won't crash tomorrow, why? > Well, for me, because the underlying platform > (OS/JRE/CLR/VM/etc) does not give me any guarantees. I cannot > build any engineering product on top of that, no matter what > process I employ. True, the underlying platform is always a risk. But then, you don't have to push it, and you're normally not the first user of it, and you've validated it, so you have some confidence that it won't crash for what you're using it for. -- James Kanze
From: James Kanze on 10 Feb 2010 17:38 On Feb 10, 7:13 pm, Pete Becker <p...(a)versatilecoding.com> wrote: > Seebs wrote: > > The job of the engineer is to know enough to build something as reliably > > as possible with the available tools, > And within the available budget. > and tell you how reliable that is. > Anyone can build a bridge that stands up. It takes an engineer > to build on that barely stands up. Or to tell you exactly what it will stand up to, or how much it will cost before you start building it. And of course, that's exactly what we do every day when we develop software. Customers won't give us the contract unless we can provide concrete guarantees with regards to downtime, etc., and unless we can specify a guaranteed fixed cost in advance. -- James Kanze
From: James Kanze on 10 Feb 2010 17:41 On Feb 10, 3:31 pm, Wojtek <nowh...(a)a.com> wrote: > Arved Sandstrom wrote : > > And doing proper testing and QA/GC is not "undeveloped". > This is the equivalent of building a bridge, then driving over > it. If it does not collapse, then proper engineering was used. > If it does collapses, well then we just re-build it and try > again. :-) That's the way things were in software thirty or fourty years ago. But it's true that some people have relabeled the procedure, and are trying to sell it today. (See TDD.) -- James Kanze
From: James Kanze on 10 Feb 2010 17:42
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. -- James Kanze |