Software bloat (Larkin was right)
in [Design]
|
Prev: OrCad/ question
Next: Capture hierarchy
From: krw on 23 May 2010 23:43 On Sun, 23 May 2010 13:07:23 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:51:33 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >>On Sun, 23 May 2010 11:46:05 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:58:07 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Hi John, >>>> >>>>John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>Understandable. >>>> >>>>> didn't understand the electronics business, were slow (usually sat on >>>> >>>>This ^^^^^^^^^^ is true of damn near all OTS software solutions, IMO. >>>>It *might* work for the folks who wrote it. But, probably won't >>>>for anyone else (since no two companies do things the same way) >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>I don't believe in "part numbering systems" beyond: "How many >>>>digits in the P/N?" (see other thread for my discussion). >>>> >>>>E.g., how would I even *begin* to assign part numbers to each >>>>of the software modules I create? >>> >>>Software is usually kept track of with a version control system. Which >>>may or may not be (directly) part of your development environment. >> >>The object files, or ROM images, are generally stored as part of the ECO >>system, at least for embedded systems. >> >><...> > >I don't mind if my guys use a VCS (I don't use one personally) but >they must formally release standalone source files and make files and >readme files, using archived tools, so that anyone can come along >later and type "GO" or "MAKE" and rebuild everything, even if the VCS >is dead and gone. I'm on your side here, but that's not the way most places run. You have to be pretty intimate with the tools to get anything to run. The tools force it. FPGAs aren't any different; no MAKE. That's one of the reasons I liked defining pins with attribute statements rather than use the various tools' spreadsheet utilities. *Everything* then goes in the source. I'm very far in the minority, and a lot of tools seem to not allow this anymore. >We release firmware as a drawing number and rev letter, just like any >other drawing. None of this 7.04.12b version nonsense! We do the same, but it still gets a double-dotted version number for the customer interface. That's what everyone wants to see.
From: D Yuniskis on 23 May 2010 22:17 Hi Michael, Michael A. Terrell wrote: > "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:17:54 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: >>>> I've never seen a library that keeps them in ISBN order. I doubt even Amazon >>>> keeps them in ISBN order. >>> >>> That's because libraries sort books by the Dewy Decimal System, which >>> is much older than ISBN. >> SO? Renumber them. Why is there an ISBN if Dewey is so great? BTW, many >> libraries don't use Dewey. I'm quite sure Amazon doesn't either. > > Dewy was US based, for filing in a library. ISBN is international, > and identifies the publisher. Actually, there are three (variable length) fields in an ISBN: - group/country code - publisher code - item number The widths of each field vary. E.g., some publisher codes are "narrower" than others -- allowing for more "items numbers" to be created by that publisher. The converse is also true. Splitting the ISBN like this wasn't done to add "order" to the numering system but, rather, to allow different portions of the "number space" to be delegated to different entities to eliminate the need for "centralized administration" of the numbers. I.e., in much the same way that google.com allows all names *in* that domain to be handled by *google* without the consent/involvement of ibm.com, baz.com, etc. Since various chunks of the number space are administered by different entities, the "quality" of the system varies. You can find books with different numbers. And, can find different titles with the *same* number (ooops!). You can "decode" an ISBN to determine where to "put the delimiters" (usually dashes or dots) though this isn't necessary -- it just makes the numbers easier to read. I have an ISBN data type in my PostgreSQL implementation that does this automatically when pretty-printing ISBN's. (PostgreSQL lets the user create "user defined types" to support things of interest to *that* user) There are other standards for other materials: ISSN's, ISMN's, etc. Libraries technically are exposed to all of these... Often, book publishers pursue an LoC designation for their titles as many libraries won't accept materials for their collections without one. > Reprints of the same book have different > ISBN numbers. A library would be pretty useless with the books sorted > by publisher and date order. > > 'Amazon' isn't a library. They're just identifiers. "Handles" used to access items. Whether a library, store, etc. >>> How old do you think the ISBN system is? >>> Which of the two ISBN systems would you use? BTW, I have a LOT of books >>> without ISBN numbers. >> What the Maxim databook. ;-) > > I don't recall ever seeing an ISBN number on any databook, since they > aren't sold through regular book distribution channels. Hmmm... I haven't checked new databooks but I recall many of the 68000 "databooks" were actually published by a mainstream publisher (outsourced?). I'd have to look at them to see what sorts of identifiers they carry. Nowadays, it seems like most "databooks" are CD's... > I'm talking about my collection of SF, history and military books > printed before the mid '70s. Most of my old paperbacks have completely bogus "house numbers" on them. Of course, there were *lots* of publishers around at that time (since gone belly-up or "absorbed") so you didn't need very many digits in *your* "book number". And, no effort to make the numbers share a universal, common "number space".
From: Michael A. Terrell on 24 May 2010 03:56 D Yuniskis wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:17:54 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > >> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> > >>> "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > >>>> I've never seen a library that keeps them in ISBN order. I doubt even Amazon > >>>> keeps them in ISBN order. > >>> > >>> That's because libraries sort books by the Dewy Decimal System, which > >>> is much older than ISBN. > >> SO? Renumber them. Why is there an ISBN if Dewey is so great? BTW, many > >> libraries don't use Dewey. I'm quite sure Amazon doesn't either. > > > > Dewy was US based, for filing in a library. ISBN is international, > > and identifies the publisher. > > Actually, there are three (variable length) fields in an ISBN: > - group/country code > - publisher code > - item number > > The widths of each field vary. E.g., some publisher codes are > "narrower" than others -- allowing for more "items numbers" to > be created by that publisher. The converse is also true. > > Splitting the ISBN like this wasn't done to add "order" to > the numering system but, rather, to allow different portions > of the "number space" to be delegated to different entities to > eliminate the need for "centralized administration" of the > numbers. I.e., in much the same way that google.com allows > all names *in* that domain to be handled by *google* without > the consent/involvement of ibm.com, baz.com, etc. > > Since various chunks of the number space are administered > by different entities, the "quality" of the system varies. > You can find books with different numbers. And, can find > different titles with the *same* number (ooops!). > > You can "decode" an ISBN to determine where to "put the > delimiters" (usually dashes or dots) though this isn't > necessary -- it just makes the numbers easier to read. > I have an ISBN data type in my PostgreSQL implementation > that does this automatically when pretty-printing ISBN's. > (PostgreSQL lets the user create "user defined types" to > support things of interest to *that* user) > > There are other standards for other materials: ISSN's, > ISMN's, etc. Libraries technically are exposed to all > of these... > > Often, book publishers pursue an LoC designation for > their titles as many libraries won't accept materials > for their collections without one. > > > Reprints of the same book have different > > ISBN numbers. A library would be pretty useless with the books sorted > > by publisher and date order. > > > > 'Amazon' isn't a library. > > They're just identifiers. "Handles" used to access items. > Whether a library, store, etc. > > >>> How old do you think the ISBN system is? > >>> Which of the two ISBN systems would you use? BTW, I have a LOT of books > >>> without ISBN numbers. > >> What the Maxim databook. ;-) > > > > I don't recall ever seeing an ISBN number on any databook, since they > > aren't sold through regular book distribution channels. > > Hmmm... I haven't checked new databooks but I recall many > of the 68000 "databooks" were actually published by a > mainstream publisher (outsourced?). I'd have to look at them > to see what sorts of identifiers they carry. > > Nowadays, it seems like most "databooks" are CD's... > > > I'm talking about my collection of SF, history and military books > > printed before the mid '70s. > > Most of my old paperbacks have completely bogus "house numbers" > on them. Of course, there were *lots* of publishers around > at that time (since gone belly-up or "absorbed") so you didn't > need very many digits in *your* "book number". And, no effort > to make the numbers share a universal, common "number space". I'm in the process of inventorying my book collection. Less than half have an ISBN. SOme that do have the ten digit, while the newest have the newer 14 digit version. Then there are newer books that were sold by book clubs, with no ISBN or publisher identification. :( -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: D Yuniskis on 24 May 2010 04:58 Hi Michael, Michael A. Terrell wrote: > D Yuniskis wrote: >> Most of my old paperbacks have completely bogus "house numbers" >> on them. Of course, there were *lots* of publishers around >> at that time (since gone belly-up or "absorbed") so you didn't >> need very many digits in *your* "book number". And, no effort >> to make the numbers share a universal, common "number space". > > I'm in the process of inventorying my book collection. Less than half > have an ISBN. Not surprising. I suspect at least half of my books (in terms of quantity) have none. > SOme that do have the ten digit, while the newest have the > newer 14 digit version. Then there are newer books that were sold by > book clubs, with no ISBN or publisher identification. :( *No* publisher? Not even written in text?? E.g., all of my (kangaroo) "Pocket Books" have bogus numbers but still declare a publisher.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 24 May 2010 17:51
D Yuniskis wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > D Yuniskis wrote: > >> Most of my old paperbacks have completely bogus "house numbers" > >> on them. Of course, there were *lots* of publishers around > >> at that time (since gone belly-up or "absorbed") so you didn't > >> need very many digits in *your* "book number". And, no effort > >> to make the numbers share a universal, common "number space". > > > > I'm in the process of inventorying my book collection. Less than half > > have an ISBN. > > Not surprising. I suspect at least half of my books (in terms of > quantity) have none. > > > Some that do have the ten digit, while the newest have the > > newer 14 digit version. Then there are newer books that were sold by > > book clubs, with no ISBN or publisher identification. :( > > *No* publisher? Not even written in text?? E.g., all of my > (kangaroo) "Pocket Books" have bogus numbers but still declare > a publisher. Sorry, I meant no publisher's stock number, like older books had. They just named the publisher and listed it as 'Book Club Edition' which makes it hard to find any additional information on some books. I still have another 1000 books to inventory. :( Some are stacked to the ceiling in Banana boxes. Every shelf in my library is full, and I am considering turning the bedroom next to it into another, larger library. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge. |