I hate the program I am working on...
-
Cure one bug it 'seems' to work, acid test , out crawls another, I feel like that bloke who had push a round stone up a hill only to have it roll down again (Sisyphus). You cure one bug another one happens! I am getting just do the 'do the changes asked for, make sure it runs & ship it, Not a rewrite as I can't afford you to be caught up doing tech support for them and they need it to be robust', 'but... ':confused: How can a piece of software that runs by luck be considered robust, you fart near it, it falls flat on its face!
it shouldn´t be, but often a release is saying to the customer how great the product is and diving for cover the moment he walks out the door. good luck :-)
-
it shouldn´t be, but often a release is saying to the customer how great the product is and diving for cover the moment he walks out the door. good luck :-)
I fraggin' Need it! Thanks :)
-
Cure one bug it 'seems' to work, acid test , out crawls another, I feel like that bloke who had push a round stone up a hill only to have it roll down again (Sisyphus). You cure one bug another one happens! I am getting just do the 'do the changes asked for, make sure it runs & ship it, Not a rewrite as I can't afford you to be caught up doing tech support for them and they need it to be robust', 'but... ':confused: How can a piece of software that runs by luck be considered robust, you fart near it, it falls flat on its face!
I know thy ordeal... and I like the farting part :).
Mislim, dakle jeo sam.
-
I know thy ordeal... and I like the farting part :).
Mislim, dakle jeo sam.
If it needs to robust, just rewrite the thing! Quicker, Easier & Cheaper!! but no 'its there problem if it doesn't work'...nice idea if IMHO it stops working who gets call/yelled at the last person to have anything to do with it. :wtf:
-
Cure one bug it 'seems' to work, acid test , out crawls another, I feel like that bloke who had push a round stone up a hill only to have it roll down again (Sisyphus). You cure one bug another one happens! I am getting just do the 'do the changes asked for, make sure it runs & ship it, Not a rewrite as I can't afford you to be caught up doing tech support for them and they need it to be robust', 'but... ':confused: How can a piece of software that runs by luck be considered robust, you fart near it, it falls flat on its face!
glennPattonWork wrote:
How can a piece of software that runs by luck be considered robust, you fart near it, it falls flat on its face!
A couple weeks ago I told a client I'm off the project. Along the lines of some article I read about contracting was the wisdom "Learn to say no even to money." The application, a crowdfunding website, is based on the open source project "catarse" (Ruby on Rails), and my fork of it (July 2013 or so) was what I was working with. Let's see: The code is insane - it look like different people worked on it with different technology stacks It's unstable - for example, emails are incorrectly sent to me for some projects, but not others, and I have no idea why. It's overly complex - the use of events when straight forward code would have worked, layers of weird code between "do A" and "I'm doing A". Ridiculous uses of technology - a one-off no-sql database being used to store a single value, once in the code, that is referenced somewhere else only once, but requires a completely separate daemon process to be running to support this critical path code. Incomprehensible behavior - the whole behavior around what happens when a project expires is crazy, depending on a separate daemon task to update state and still remains a complete mystery as to how some states are transitioned. It was too much!!! I couldn't separate out the hatred I started developing for the thing. But besides learning some actually cool stuff, I also learned something important about time and money. As long as there is some standard of efficiency to my time, then there's an equivalence to $'s. When the efficiency of the time utilization starts to nose dive, the "value" of the $'s being earned for that time diminishes rapidly. Why? Because I also want to be doing other things. And of course, because the $'s didn't increase for the same unit of time, the time-value per $ ratio started to get seriously out of whack. And that's what led me to saying "NO!" Marc
-
glennPattonWork wrote:
How can a piece of software that runs by luck be considered robust, you fart near it, it falls flat on its face!
A couple weeks ago I told a client I'm off the project. Along the lines of some article I read about contracting was the wisdom "Learn to say no even to money." The application, a crowdfunding website, is based on the open source project "catarse" (Ruby on Rails), and my fork of it (July 2013 or so) was what I was working with. Let's see: The code is insane - it look like different people worked on it with different technology stacks It's unstable - for example, emails are incorrectly sent to me for some projects, but not others, and I have no idea why. It's overly complex - the use of events when straight forward code would have worked, layers of weird code between "do A" and "I'm doing A". Ridiculous uses of technology - a one-off no-sql database being used to store a single value, once in the code, that is referenced somewhere else only once, but requires a completely separate daemon process to be running to support this critical path code. Incomprehensible behavior - the whole behavior around what happens when a project expires is crazy, depending on a separate daemon task to update state and still remains a complete mystery as to how some states are transitioned. It was too much!!! I couldn't separate out the hatred I started developing for the thing. But besides learning some actually cool stuff, I also learned something important about time and money. As long as there is some standard of efficiency to my time, then there's an equivalence to $'s. When the efficiency of the time utilization starts to nose dive, the "value" of the $'s being earned for that time diminishes rapidly. Why? Because I also want to be doing other things. And of course, because the $'s didn't increase for the same unit of time, the time-value per $ ratio started to get seriously out of whack. And that's what led me to saying "NO!" Marc
It looking more and more like a band aid job... :)
-
Cure one bug it 'seems' to work, acid test , out crawls another, I feel like that bloke who had push a round stone up a hill only to have it roll down again (Sisyphus). You cure one bug another one happens! I am getting just do the 'do the changes asked for, make sure it runs & ship it, Not a rewrite as I can't afford you to be caught up doing tech support for them and they need it to be robust', 'but... ':confused: How can a piece of software that runs by luck be considered robust, you fart near it, it falls flat on its face!
glennPattonWork wrote:
software that runs by luck
Still working on that VB project then? :)
It was broke, so I fixed it.
-
glennPattonWork wrote:
software that runs by luck
Still working on that VB project then? :)
It was broke, so I fixed it.
How did you guess, sleep is good, I sent the Exe that was desperately needed (it either works or they haven't realised it doesn't yet roll on the 24th) now I am fumbling with the VB that creates the ini file. XML, intelligent parsing No! flat text read in with the stream reader and pick it out with a substring (what can go wrong!) is the way to go... if I could get my hands on the original 9 year old that wrote this I would murder him!:mad: [Off Topic] Your profile pic is a Les Paul (of some description) much of a player???
-
Cure one bug it 'seems' to work, acid test , out crawls another, I feel like that bloke who had push a round stone up a hill only to have it roll down again (Sisyphus). You cure one bug another one happens! I am getting just do the 'do the changes asked for, make sure it runs & ship it, Not a rewrite as I can't afford you to be caught up doing tech support for them and they need it to be robust', 'but... ':confused: How can a piece of software that runs by luck be considered robust, you fart near it, it falls flat on its face!
The fact that you're being asked to do that kind of duct tape work to ship something that full of bugs seems to me to be the real problem. (Some might think the fact that you're agreeing to it would be another one.)
-
The fact that you're being asked to do that kind of duct tape work to ship something that full of bugs seems to me to be the real problem. (Some might think the fact that you're agreeing to it would be another one.)
Quote:
(Some might think the fact that you're agreeing to it would be another one.)
I didn't agree to do it, I wasn't even in the room. I got lumbered with the famous 'Glenn won't mind having a look at that' :|