Regarding this week's survey question...
-
I agree - that's why I use a VS Spell Check addin: Visual Studio Spell Checker[^] for VS2019, and Spell Checker - Visual Studio Marketplace[^] for earlier version. It checks and "red lines" spelling mistakes in comments, strings, ... everything but variables!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
"Which software development methodologies do you use?" What I think has been lost in all the noise of so-called methodologies is the total disregard for quality. And by that I mean simple things like DRY principle and even correct spelling (particularly customer facing UI's). We speak of passion for software development, but where is the passion for doing something well? I don't mean perfect, but the code I so often encounter just screams "I clearly don't give a shit." These methodologies, they don't address any of this. Where in these methodologies is "show that you care about your work?" It doesn't exist. Maybe I should create a Care-Bear[^] Methodology and write a "care meter" plugin for VS. :laugh:
Latest Article - A 4-Stack rPI Cluster with WiFi-Ethernet Bridging Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
If I could give you 5 upvotes I would
cheers Chris Maunder
-
If I could give you 5 upvotes I would
cheers Chris Maunder
I suspect you can, if anyone can! :laugh:
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
"Which software development methodologies do you use?" What I think has been lost in all the noise of so-called methodologies is the total disregard for quality. And by that I mean simple things like DRY principle and even correct spelling (particularly customer facing UI's). We speak of passion for software development, but where is the passion for doing something well? I don't mean perfect, but the code I so often encounter just screams "I clearly don't give a shit." These methodologies, they don't address any of this. Where in these methodologies is "show that you care about your work?" It doesn't exist. Maybe I should create a Care-Bear[^] Methodology and write a "care meter" plugin for VS. :laugh:
Latest Article - A 4-Stack rPI Cluster with WiFi-Ethernet Bridging Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
Marc Clifton wrote:
"I clearly don't give a sh*t."
Which is a work ethic, not methodology. These methodologies are NOT SUPPOSED to have anything to do with a person's work ethic. Work ethic is out of scope to any methodology. You are either diligent in your work, or not. :thumbsup:
-
If I could give you 5 upvotes I would
cheers Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote:
If I could give you 5 upvotes I would
You could if you wanted to. Just saying... :laugh: You do hold the keys to Castle Bob.
-
The problem is it that quality is too expensive, and we live in a world where quality software just isn't very important anymore. So what if there is problems in the software, we can roll out a patch within 24 hours. It's not like the old days where you have to get it near perfect first time because the cost of a patch was just too expensive. The most obvious example of this is with video games. It used to be that the game had to work first time and needed testing to death, because nobody wanted the costs of a recall. Whereas today, they ship games before they are even finished and then release a "day one" patch in time for release/delivery day. In short, there just isn't enough consequence to releasing bugs anymore.
While I think this is true for the most part, it also largely depends on your line of work. My software runs machines that produce a LOT of product every day. I hear about nearly every hiccup it has because it costs the company money and that is very consequential to a lot of people and their wallets. Me included.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
"I clearly don't give a sh*t."
Which is a work ethic, not methodology. These methodologies are NOT SUPPOSED to have anything to do with a person's work ethic. Work ethic is out of scope to any methodology. You are either diligent in your work, or not. :thumbsup:
I don't entirely agree. It seems to me the success of any methodology depends entirely on the work ethic of the participants. If they have none then failure is unavoidable.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
-
I don't entirely agree. It seems to me the success of any methodology depends entirely on the work ethic of the participants. If they have none then failure is unavoidable.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
Rick York wrote:
the success of any methodology depends entirely on the work ethic of the participants.
we are not discussing the "success" of anything here. we are discussing which methodologies you use, per the original Poll. Marc is cross pollinating work ethic with a methodology. being successful and have a good work ethic has nothing to do with which methodologies a person uses.
-
musefan wrote:
In short, there just isn't enough consequence to releasing bugs anymore.
Very good post!! You are totally spot on with that. Back in the day when you had to ship 3.5" floppies, you had to get it right!!
-
Rick York wrote:
the success of any methodology depends entirely on the work ethic of the participants.
we are not discussing the "success" of anything here. we are discussing which methodologies you use, per the original Poll. Marc is cross pollinating work ethic with a methodology. being successful and have a good work ethic has nothing to do with which methodologies a person uses.
Slacker007 wrote:
being successful and have a good work ethic has nothing to do with which methodologies a person uses.
Well somebody has never been in management!
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
-
Slacker007 wrote:
being successful and have a good work ethic has nothing to do with which methodologies a person uses.
Well somebody has never been in management!
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
:zzz: I have been in management before. I still stand by my original comments.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
"I clearly don't give a sh*t."
Which is a work ethic, not methodology. These methodologies are NOT SUPPOSED to have anything to do with a person's work ethic. Work ethic is out of scope to any methodology. You are either diligent in your work, or not. :thumbsup:
Slacker007 wrote:
Which is a work ethic, not methodology.
Exactly. And I contend that we don't need methodologies, we need better work ethics.
Latest Article - A 4-Stack rPI Cluster with WiFi-Ethernet Bridging Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
-
Slacker007 wrote:
Which is a work ethic, not methodology.
Exactly. And I contend that we don't need methodologies, we need better work ethics.
Latest Article - A 4-Stack rPI Cluster with WiFi-Ethernet Bridging Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
you need both. you need good methodologies that work for you and your team, and you need team members with a strong work ethic. both, together, is what makes it work "great". most shops/teams never realize this type of nirvana. my previous argument was that they are independent of each other on their own merit and definition. you have to combine them together, to make the magic work.
-
"Which software development methodologies do you use?" What I think has been lost in all the noise of so-called methodologies is the total disregard for quality. And by that I mean simple things like DRY principle and even correct spelling (particularly customer facing UI's). We speak of passion for software development, but where is the passion for doing something well? I don't mean perfect, but the code I so often encounter just screams "I clearly don't give a shit." These methodologies, they don't address any of this. Where in these methodologies is "show that you care about your work?" It doesn't exist. Maybe I should create a Care-Bear[^] Methodology and write a "care meter" plugin for VS. :laugh:
Latest Article - A 4-Stack rPI Cluster with WiFi-Ethernet Bridging Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
Any company, or person, who has "we/I are/am passionate about <insert relevant item here>", is not. If they really were, then it would show in the quality of their products and they would not need to crow about it. It is almost as stupid as the recorded message you hear while waiting to connect to customer services, which repeatedly says, "your call is important to us".
-
raddevus wrote:
you had to ship 3.5" floppies
Such a youngster!
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
-
Any company, or person, who has "we/I are/am passionate about <insert relevant item here>", is not. If they really were, then it would show in the quality of their products and they would not need to crow about it. It is almost as stupid as the recorded message you hear while waiting to connect to customer services, which repeatedly says, "your call is important to us".
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
"your call is important to us".
We care about our customers enough to put you on hold.....f-o-r-e-v-e-r. :laugh:
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
If I could give you 5 upvotes I would
You could if you wanted to. Just saying... :laugh: You do hold the keys to Castle Bob.
Careful or I might get tempted to start porting to TypeScript.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
:zzz: I have been in management before. I still stand by my original comments.
-
musefan wrote:
In short, there just isn't enough consequence to releasing bugs anymore.
Very good post!! You are totally spot on with that. Back in the day when you had to ship 3.5" floppies, you had to get it right!!
Like DRHuff (above) said 'such a youngster'. Back when I was working mainframes, in order to do a patch I had to book a plane, take the patch tapes to each TRADOC (12 or 13 I think) site, install, test, then re-train the users in the changes. Generally figured a week at each site.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
-
musefan wrote:
In short, there just isn't enough consequence to releasing bugs anymore.
Very good post!! You are totally spot on with that. Back in the day when you had to ship 3.5" floppies, you had to get it right!!
When I started around '98, CD/R had just become the rage. I have recurring nightmares of sitting in a hotel room in Nashville the night before the release of our flagship software. We were burning and labeling CDs while testing the latest version...it was down to the wire. A critical bug meant that we wasted over 80 CDs/labels and had to start over...it was 4:30AM before I got to bed that night! :zzz: We were too cheap for duplicators...it was 2 machines set up to do one at a time. :sigh: To your point, we haven't shipped anything on CD (or any physical media) since shortly after that incident. For many years after that, it was common to get a phone call from someone saying 'I've found this CD in my desk (usually left by a predecessor)...' and get a cold shiver :omg: that they may have actually installed what by then was years old buggy software. Luckily, it was at least good enough that they could see the potential and applying the latest patch was usually easy enough. One other thing that used to confuse people was that the boss at that time decided that it would look better if the versioning started at 6.x.x. :confused: The question for those who still write/maintain desktop software is 'how good is your application's update process?' Mine work for the most part with the exception of some customers who are 'locked down' or have aggressive A/V that eats files as they are installed/updated. :wtf: It's a fleeting question as everything seems to be moving 'to the cloud' or web-based at least.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
