Software bloat (Larkin was right)
in [Design]
|
Prev: OrCad/ question
Next: Capture hierarchy
From: Michael A. Terrell on 21 May 2010 18:04 Joel Koltner wrote: > > "D Yuniskis" <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote in message > news:ht6rr9$9fq$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > Ah, most firms I've worked with don't let anyone other than > > "stockroom personnel" into the stockroom. I.e., it's not a "store"... > > That can work if there's a separate stockroom that keeps "engineering > prototype" parts (or whatever you want to call them) -- Tektronix did this --, > but if not, I think it's a bad idea -- pretty much guarantees that you'll end > up with a lot of parts serve largely identical functions: Even with the best > electronic inventory system, you can't usually guarantee form, fit, and > function without taking a look at the physical part... and if it comes down to > getting a physical part requiring just as much effort and being slower than > just spec'ing a new one that you got as a sample of from your last DigiKey > order, most people are going to go with the later. > > Additionally, I think most people can far more quickly get an idea of the > "kinds" of things the company has in stock by browsing the stockroom shelves a > bit than just reading inventory lists. It really helps when building a prototype, or test fixture. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 21 May 2010 18:06 John Larkin wrote: > > On Thu, 20 May 2010 21:40:17 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:02:00 -0700, D Yuniskis > >> <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Hi John, > >> > > >> >John Larkin wrote: > >> >>> For a lean, poor man's "GUI", consider using a manu system > >> >>> atop curses. *Very* fast (even over a serial link!) and > >> >>> has all the "feel" of a GUI without the G. > >> >> > >> >> Here's our parts thing, home page. It's all single-letter keystroke > >> >> commands and prompts. It a blast to drive. > >> >> > >> >> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/MAX.jpg > >> >> > >> >> You can look at all parts, do searches, do where-used, browse parts > >> >> lists, see datasheets/photos/links/engineering notes. Parts selected > >> >> in one context are carried over into others... you can prowl a parts > >> >> list, highlight a part, escape out, and the part is featured on the > >> >> home page. Then do where-used, or open the part data file, or enter > >> >> the total parts report at that point. > >> > > >> >You developed this in-house? Why not use something off-the-shelf? > >> >(OTOH, most OTS solutions force you to do business "their way") > >> > >> We tested some commercial packages and didn't like them. They clearly > >> didn't understand the electronics business, were slow (usually sat on > >> top of a general-purpose database manager, a hazard in itself) and > >> often had silly per-seat-per-year license rules. > >> > >> I wrote the skeleton of this myself and we hired a contract guy to do > >> the detail coding. The biggest part wasn't the code, it was inventing > >> and documenting a new part numbering system, re-describing all the > >> parts in stock (close to 5000 of them) and moving/relabeling all the > >> bins. It was worth it, and now we own the source code. > >> > >> The Brat bird-dogged the project to completion, including browbeating > >> the programmer into doing good work and forcing the engineers to go > >> through those 5000 part records one at a time. I was impressed. > > > > > > Did she use a whip and a chair, or a pistol? ;-) > > Force of personality, plus lots of pizza. Never with a nice smile? ;-) -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Didi on 21 May 2010 18:31 On May 21, 11:23 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Didi" <d...(a)tgi-sci.com> wrote in message > > news:2167cdf2-6c00-40d0-a324-b43ddde07edc(a)l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com... > > >Noticed this just now. Bulgaria claims to be non-communist last > >two decades. But almost every country claims that nowadays just as > >almost every country fails the real test on it so it > >is nothing worth the attention :-). > > I expect that, e.g., in China they have the filters sets so that Googling > "communist China" returns zero results. :-) > > Thanks for the response, Didi -- I'm impressed with how much you were able to > accomplish with so little. Thanks for the appreciation, Joel. While having less than I could use has been accompanying me throughout my life (like just about anyone else, I suppose), I think the limiting factor has been the unit in front of the keyboard :-) . Dimiter
From: D Yuniskis on 21 May 2010 20:40 Hi John, John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:40:00 -0700, D Yuniskis > <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: > >> Hi Phil, >> >> Phil Hobbs wrote: >>> On 5/20/2010 2:03 PM, D Yuniskis wrote: >>>> This, I think, is an outgrowth of the same sort of >>>> ridiculous mindset that people initially bring to >>>> *organizing* data. E.g., how many part numbering systems >>>> have data embedded *in* the part number that tries to >>>> describe the item? (isn't that the role of the *description* >>>> tied to the P/N??) People impose structure on things >>>> unnecessarily instead of letting the machine do that on >>>> their behalf. >>>> >>>> E.g., when I started preparing documents, standards, etc. >>>> here, I used a much more commonsense approach: I started >>>> with *1* :> (instead of something artificial like >>>> 1985-SPEC-SFW-001.1 -- the ".1" being a revision level, etc.) >>>> Then, moved on to "2". >>>> >>>> Data should largely be free-form -- except where it *can't* :> >>>> This applies to part numbers, object (file) names, etc. Once >>>> you start imposing artificial structure, you start forcing >>>> things to be "done your way" -- which, typically, exposes >>>> some *flaw* in "your way", later (once you are *very* pregnant!) >>>> >>>> Put smarts in the system to be able to *understand* the data. >>> It's sort of nice to be able to look at a part number and see whether >>> it's a capacitor or a BNC connector, though. That doesn't have to have >>> descriptions embedded in the part number, but it does need a bit of >>> thought, e.g. numbers starting with '0' are subassemblies, '1', >>> resistors, '2', capacitors, and so forth. Takes an extra couple of >>> digits but makes life a lot easier. >> I don't think it works, in the long run. And, I think >> the effort spent trying to figure out *how* to do this >> (and codifying it and ensuring everyone uses the same >> rules) is better used getting better descriptions, better >> search capabilities, etc. > > It is convenient to have all the 0805 resistors in the same part of > the stockroom, and not mixed randomly with transformers and sheet > metal and shrink tubing. Even more convenient to have them in order by > resistance. There's nothing that says part numbers have to be positioned on shelves in sequential order. You track the *location* of a part as part of your inventory control system. So that you are free to put things wherever is most convenient. E.g., large sheets of copper, mu metal, FR4, etc. will have similar storage requirements -- regardless of their part numbers. So, you organize the stock in such a way that makes sense for those parts without concern for the arbitrary "identifier" you have assigned them. Let the machine figure out where something is. Let it print your pick list in an order that *it* knows is efficient (because *it* knows the physical layout of your stockroom and can order the part numbers so you don't wander around looking for numbers "in numerical order"; sort of like preparing a grocery list -- you list the eggs with the butter so you can pick up both of them in "Dairy")
From: krw on 21 May 2010 21:22
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:30:50 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:40:00 -0700, D Yuniskis ><not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: > >>Hi Phil, >> >>Phil Hobbs wrote: >>> On 5/20/2010 2:03 PM, D Yuniskis wrote: >>>> This, I think, is an outgrowth of the same sort of >>>> ridiculous mindset that people initially bring to >>>> *organizing* data. E.g., how many part numbering systems >>>> have data embedded *in* the part number that tries to >>>> describe the item? (isn't that the role of the *description* >>>> tied to the P/N??) People impose structure on things >>>> unnecessarily instead of letting the machine do that on >>>> their behalf. >>>> >>>> E.g., when I started preparing documents, standards, etc. >>>> here, I used a much more commonsense approach: I started >>>> with *1* :> (instead of something artificial like >>>> 1985-SPEC-SFW-001.1 -- the ".1" being a revision level, etc.) >>>> Then, moved on to "2". >>>> >>>> Data should largely be free-form -- except where it *can't* :> >>>> This applies to part numbers, object (file) names, etc. Once >>>> you start imposing artificial structure, you start forcing >>>> things to be "done your way" -- which, typically, exposes >>>> some *flaw* in "your way", later (once you are *very* pregnant!) >>>> >>>> Put smarts in the system to be able to *understand* the data. >>> >>> It's sort of nice to be able to look at a part number and see whether >>> it's a capacitor or a BNC connector, though. That doesn't have to have >>> descriptions embedded in the part number, but it does need a bit of >>> thought, e.g. numbers starting with '0' are subassemblies, '1', >>> resistors, '2', capacitors, and so forth. Takes an extra couple of >>> digits but makes life a lot easier. >> >>I don't think it works, in the long run. And, I think >>the effort spent trying to figure out *how* to do this >>(and codifying it and ensuring everyone uses the same >>rules) is better used getting better descriptions, better >>search capabilities, etc. > >It is convenient to have all the 0805 resistors in the same part of >the stockroom, and not mixed randomly with transformers and sheet >metal and shrink tubing. Even more convenient to have them in order by >resistance. Our part numbering system *was* somewhat intelligent. 0603 resistors are of the form 501-3110-nnne. Then some knucklehead demanded that all parts be numbered sequentially. Now some 0603 resistors will have a number like 00000201. Who cares about making sense to engineering? THe inventory location has nothing to do with the part number, though. >>I don't understand the false security that comes from >>putting information like that in a "name" for an object. >>E.g., I likewise don't understand "hungarian notation" >>for naming variables. >> >>I'm sure glad my parents didn't name me: boy_son_eldest_Don! > >Be more grateful it wasn't boy_son_eldest_Susan. After all, names >don't mean anything, so any random choice is as good as any other. > >John > |