Puzzled...
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
And if you stop thinking
Whoa! Hold on. I didn't think that thinking was allowed. We're just supposed to take what Microsoft gives us and apply it (blindly) to all the problems that we have. They've told us that it will solve everything. Yeah, that's the ticket. It'll solve everything! ;P Mike
No no no, Managers are not supposed to think. We as programmers that actually think for a living have to keep thinking. We just have to be carefully who we share that information with. ;)
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
so why a new version give people confidence to use the previous (and inferior) version?
Remember Winamp? In one version change they went from a light, stable, fast, useful app to a bloated beast of ungodly proportions. 2.0 does not automatically mean better than 1.0. It means different. Different introduces risk. New features, unproven features, new bugs, unfixed bugs. 1.0 gets "proven" by rolling out 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5.1.2. Fixes, patches, proven performance improvements. People have hammered 1.0 and so 1.1 fixes what was revealed in 1.0. 1.2 then fixes what was revealed in hammering 1.1. And so on. When 2.0 is rolled out it is, hopefully, everything learned from version 1, bug fixes from the version 1 life-time (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc.) plus new features and ideas that I need. But I would still wait for 2.1, or 2.0.1. I'd be worried if in an interview the interviewer told me "Why are you using 1.0 when 2.0 is obviously better?" It isn't obviously better. It may be obviously cooler but it may also be buggy as hell. No offense Super Loyd but you seem bitten by the "Must have latest version" marketing game. I thought much the same for years but now have learned to go careful with new versions.
Super Lloyd wrote:
While, basically, 'x+2' is a fix over 'x' and 'x+1' so it doesn't make much sense to use it as a clue to use 'x+1'.
No. 1.1 is a fix over 1.0. 2.0 is not a fix over 1.0. It is a new major version. It could be radically different and profoundly broken. (Obviously if someone misuses version numbers and rolls out a lot of new features in a point release then you are screwed.)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote:
Watson's law: As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
But we're not talking about WinAMP - we're talking MS products. 2.0 is 1.1... 1.1 is something like 0.9.8.9 Beta.
----
I don't care what you consider witty, but at least I do not blather on posting nonsense like Jim Crafton.
-- Stringcheese, humbled by Crafton's ability to string together multiple sentences
-
You are exactly right. But... Customers aren't stupid. There's this really amazing line in economics where supply meets demand. It's a fascinating line because there's 1000 subtle nuances that influence that magical line. Quality is one of them and so is durability. I'm driving a 1997 Toyota 4Runner which has quality and durability. Admittedly I could sell it and get a brand new Hyundai for cash and it would run well for maybe 5 years and then it's durability would dip. Meanwhile it's quality would have begun to fade years prior. My 1997 4Runner costs me nothing, the quality (though not premium) is obvious. The durability... gosh that's legendary. I knew it when I bought it and I knew I was paying about $3000 more than I'd pay for a knock-off equivalent. I bought high. Our customers are the same way. Consumers are starting to complain, "This buggy thing won't run right 7 times out 20. What a piece of crap." That feedback gets to the developer and the developer doesn't lash back and bitch (not if he's smart anyway). The developer gets out of his $39 chair and walks/drives over the customer and the developer explains the supply/demand curve. The developer says, "I can write you a product now that will cost you 3 times as much up front but you'll be able to use 6 times longer. Or we can keep going with this rapshod thing you nickle and dime me into writing because you won't spend a fair price up front to get a product that has quality and durability." Customers aren't stupid. Even if this doesn't work the first time it will work in the long run. What are industry seriously lacks is patient developers serving (in the 1st person) a fickle customer. More direct interaction between the developer and the customer is going to be what fixes the FUBAR. Get PM's out of the way. In fact fire them or demote them back to developers or remote them to writing documentation. Either way PM's kill our industry. So that's my take. There's a load of smart customers that want quality and durability. Someone just needs to take the time to explain how all that works to them. Once that's done all our lives get a bit easier. Of course we have to get Microsoft to stop releasing products and updates every 6 months but ... pigs will fly first so ... go spit in the wind on that one. :-D
Amen to the point on project managers. And I think you touched on one of the industries largest problems that's always been there, how to speak customer. I'm affraid it's always going to be difficult for developers to communicate with customers. People that ask for software will never understand what goes into it, and developers, always thinking in detail, may never be able to bridge that gap adequately. So I think you will always need PMs, just not the PMs we have. Management (generally knowing squat about development as well) seems to think that any old manager will work fine as a PM. But what a PM needs to be is a rare hybrid of manager / developer that can understand and relay for both sides. There are some damn good PMs out there, but they are far and few between. The same goes for management in general, but you may as well consider them customers anyway, they'll never change.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
ha. thanks .. it actually comes from kant's writings (not that i'm a philosopher or anything) it was one of those coffee shop book browse days, picked up a random book, flipped it open and there it was: Sapere aude (and not that i speak latin either) which is more literally "dare to know" or so i'm told and so it was kinda declared the motto of enlightenment back in the day (18th Century) i liked it- it seems as apt today as it was probably back then.. and it stuck i'll update the sig... it was Kant's inspiration afterall :) speaking of which... does this ever remain true to this day, and applicable... Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external direction (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless remains under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay - others will easily undertake the irksome work for me. insert: If i have a framework_version which solves my problem, i need not think...
<>< :: have the courage to use your own reason -Kant
homegrown wrote:
Laziness and cowardice
Boy does that ring a bell these days. I've long seen that very thing as a problem in America for a looooooooong time now. It bothers me to see so many people that never bother to use the magical goop God put between their ears. They begrudgingly do the bare minimum through school and never attempt thinking again. People here hear stories of Chinese families comming over and workin in a doughnut shop, sleeping on a cot in the back until they save up enough to buy their own doughnut shop, and they can't believe somebody would do that. I guess it's just gotten too easy in America to get through life without having to think for yourself. Not to get off topic, but the other problem I see these days is that everybody seems to be more and more selfish and inconsiderate. Nobody seems to care about anybody any more. Which might be the result of a possitive feedback between the two, now that I think of it. That's why I love talking to true developers. They remind me that there are still people out there that care about what they do and never gave up on using gray matter. They give me hope. I really hope that this boom in technology growth in recent decades will help Darwin do his job, since we've put so much in place to avoid him.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
You know the type, Microsoft release a new product, let's say .NET 1.0 and people will say: "ho it's unproven technology, I will wait for the next version to consider it" Later on Microsoft release .NET 2.0 which is (admitedly :-D) an improvement. And then the same people say: ho, ok, it's proven now, let's start to use.... 1.0!?!?!? But, admitedly, 1.0 was not good enough (clearly compared to 2.0) so why a new version give people confidence to use the previous (and inferior) version? When it's really the latest they should use... I ask that because I met a few people lately (having job interview) which basically wait for version 'x+2' of the framework to be confident to use version 'x+1'. While, basically, 'x+2' is a fix over 'x' and 'x+1' so it doesn't make much sense to use it as a clue to use 'x+1'. Do you see what I mean? How do you explain this behavior?!? (OK, maybe I made it up a bit, after all they have other reason such as: our customer base don't support this version of the framework, hence the question is more targeted to sys admin than to developers....)
Super Lloyd wrote:
people will say: "ho it's unproven technology, I will wait for the next version to consider it"
I was told the same about purchasing a new car. Always wait 3-6 months until bugs are fixed in a new model. I've watched problems repeatedly in new models - recalls, free fixes, etc. The later model has the problems fixed, and typically new options, but not nearly like software. New versions almost always contain new features that are basically unproven. Maybe we should never use the x.0 version, always wait. But then, the marketing people get involved and mandate to never release an x.0 version. Round and round it goes. :(
Gary
-
Is there an industry where the customer doesn't let their fingers do the talking? In the last 3 months I've shopped around for drafting services and mechanics, because I need them to do some work for me and I don't want to get ripped off. Why should I expect my customers to behave any different just because I'm a software developer rather than a draftsman or mechanic?
I think it's hard to make a comparison with a lot of consumer products. I can go to Home Depot, not knowing anything about stoves and have a pretty good idea just by looking which one is a quality machine and then can put the price tags in perspective. With software, especially custom software that hasn't been built yet, and sometimes even once it is built, customers have no idea what quality is. But yeah, with services, that is pretty true as well.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Same reason US invaded Iraq.. The world is filled with idiots. matadorqk
In posting the first part of your reply, you may have proven the second. :doh:
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Super Lloyd wrote:
so why a new version give people confidence to use the previous (and inferior) version?
Remember Winamp? In one version change they went from a light, stable, fast, useful app to a bloated beast of ungodly proportions. 2.0 does not automatically mean better than 1.0. It means different. Different introduces risk. New features, unproven features, new bugs, unfixed bugs. 1.0 gets "proven" by rolling out 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5.1.2. Fixes, patches, proven performance improvements. People have hammered 1.0 and so 1.1 fixes what was revealed in 1.0. 1.2 then fixes what was revealed in hammering 1.1. And so on. When 2.0 is rolled out it is, hopefully, everything learned from version 1, bug fixes from the version 1 life-time (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc.) plus new features and ideas that I need. But I would still wait for 2.1, or 2.0.1. I'd be worried if in an interview the interviewer told me "Why are you using 1.0 when 2.0 is obviously better?" It isn't obviously better. It may be obviously cooler but it may also be buggy as hell. No offense Super Loyd but you seem bitten by the "Must have latest version" marketing game. I thought much the same for years but now have learned to go careful with new versions.
Super Lloyd wrote:
While, basically, 'x+2' is a fix over 'x' and 'x+1' so it doesn't make much sense to use it as a clue to use 'x+1'.
No. 1.1 is a fix over 1.0. 2.0 is not a fix over 1.0. It is a new major version. It could be radically different and profoundly broken. (Obviously if someone misuses version numbers and rolls out a lot of new features in a point release then you are screwed.)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Andy Brummer wrote:
Watson's law: As an online discussion of cars grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Bugatti Veyron approaches one.
But... With the framework in particular, bugs seem to be fairly minimal, and I've not seen newer revisions of the framework include breaking changes. With Microsoft pooping out completely new versions every 15 minutes, I'd be nervous just starting 1.x when 2.0 came out. 1.x is all but obsolete now. I think it would be more of a gamble (still talking only .Net framework specifically here) to wait for a new version before jumping on the previous. Just my opinion.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
You know the type, Microsoft release a new product, let's say .NET 1.0 and people will say: "ho it's unproven technology, I will wait for the next version to consider it" Later on Microsoft release .NET 2.0 which is (admitedly :-D) an improvement. And then the same people say: ho, ok, it's proven now, let's start to use.... 1.0!?!?!? But, admitedly, 1.0 was not good enough (clearly compared to 2.0) so why a new version give people confidence to use the previous (and inferior) version? When it's really the latest they should use... I ask that because I met a few people lately (having job interview) which basically wait for version 'x+2' of the framework to be confident to use version 'x+1'. While, basically, 'x+2' is a fix over 'x' and 'x+1' so it doesn't make much sense to use it as a clue to use 'x+1'. Do you see what I mean? How do you explain this behavior?!? (OK, maybe I made it up a bit, after all they have other reason such as: our customer base don't support this version of the framework, hence the question is more targeted to sys admin than to developers....)
Super Lloyd wrote:
But, admitedly, 1.0 was not good enough (clearly compared to 2.0) so why a new version give people confidence to use the previous (and inferior) version? When it's really the latest they should use...
OK, I don't agree with these "geniuses". Of course, you're missing something too: MS actually realeased 1.0 in early 2002 and then shortly thereafter they released version 1.1 (early 2003?). Version 2.0 didn't come around until late 2005 and as of late 2007, we're still really waiting for Version 3.0 (& 3.5), both of which are slated for release in early and mid 2008. The quick turnaround on the 1.1 release was to address the "early adopter syndrome" you've just asked about :) However, to explain, there is often an underlying self-preservation motive that is hard at work here. For many years, it's been common practice in big industry (particularly with unions) to simply ignore The Next Big Thing (TNBT). These are often the same people that won't touch Vista until SP1 (or SP2 or some arbitrary timeline). There are lots of reasons for this, both good and bad: 1. New Technology is expensive: I can't just "roll-out" *TNBT* to my 1,500 desktop PCs. The average company has dozens of custom-built or industry specific apps that may or may not be technically compatible with TNBT. What's more, the IT team usually has no way of testing the changes, b/c they don't even know what the app really does. i.e.: I can't "upgrade" my accounting team to Vista without first testing their accounting suite, but I also can't test their accounting suite, b/c I'm not an accountant. This basically creates a deadlock on using any new technology until it is desperately important to do so (and even then, lots of big businesses are still extending old COBOL apps, and many businesses have just completed the move to XP in the last 12 months). 2. Long-term tech: by extension to the point above, when a "Big Co" moves to a new technology, they need assurances on both quality and long-term durability. Historically, when version N comes out, it's filled with new features and with new bugs. So Big Cos have the tendency to use version N-1 which has less features but usually contains all of the bug fixes from version N. This makes the system "more stable". By the same measure, Big Cos need tech that's going to last for a decade or more b/c it's so expensive to change/update things. Once a product has reached a second or third version, the likeli
-
You know the type, Microsoft release a new product, let's say .NET 1.0 and people will say: "ho it's unproven technology, I will wait for the next version to consider it" Later on Microsoft release .NET 2.0 which is (admitedly :-D) an improvement. And then the same people say: ho, ok, it's proven now, let's start to use.... 1.0!?!?!? But, admitedly, 1.0 was not good enough (clearly compared to 2.0) so why a new version give people confidence to use the previous (and inferior) version? When it's really the latest they should use... I ask that because I met a few people lately (having job interview) which basically wait for version 'x+2' of the framework to be confident to use version 'x+1'. While, basically, 'x+2' is a fix over 'x' and 'x+1' so it doesn't make much sense to use it as a clue to use 'x+1'. Do you see what I mean? How do you explain this behavior?!? (OK, maybe I made it up a bit, after all they have other reason such as: our customer base don't support this version of the framework, hence the question is more targeted to sys admin than to developers....)
Nothing puzzling there. By the time v2 comes out, everything else works with v1, and there are a zillion web-pages that explain how to get around v1 problems. So if you go for v2, what you're doing is taking on a whole new batch of compatibility problems that no-one has yet had the time to solve.