Why software sucks
-
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004422 [^] Is this an accurate depiction? I don't think so. I think there are problems in the entire process, from end users, clients, customers, employers, managers down to the lowly developer. Blaming just one link in the chain is disingenuous. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll enjoy and be educated by your responses. Larry, the Lowly Developer
-
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004422 [^] Is this an accurate depiction? I don't think so. I think there are problems in the entire process, from end users, clients, customers, employers, managers down to the lowly developer. Blaming just one link in the chain is disingenuous. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll enjoy and be educated by your responses. Larry, the Lowly Developer
In first sentence, I decided the author is an idiot. The designers of the earliest computer programs didn't care about making their products easy to use. Solving the computing problem at hand—for example, dealing with a printer to make the words come out properly on paper Um, no, the designers of the earliest computer programs used toggle switches and vaccuum tubes to calculate projectile trajectories. Printers? hahahaha! Forcing the human user to memorize complicated commands instead of using computer power to provide a menu listing them made economic sense. Um, how about, the technology for entering and displaying results simply didn't exist. The relative costs are now reversed, but almost everyone in the industry older than about 30 grew up in that type of environment. Um, I'm 44 (omg) and by the time I was 20, the $300 Commodore 64 was affordable, easy to use, etc. The author's concept of the environment that I grew up in is totally wrong. They became programmers because they're good at communicating with a microprocessor, the silicon chip at the heart of the machine. But the user interface, by definition, exists to communicate with an entirely different piece of hardware and software: a live human being. What a ridiculous generalization. Sure, we all make that assumption, but the people I've worked with are very real human beings with wives, husbands, dogs, children, etc. Anyways, I stopped reading. The author is a fool, and it's sad that he wrote such a book because it's unfounded, unresearched, unscientific, and he clearly doesn't understand the complexities and issues in, quite frankly, doing something that usually nobody else has done before: writing a piece of software to meet a need. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
In first sentence, I decided the author is an idiot. The designers of the earliest computer programs didn't care about making their products easy to use. Solving the computing problem at hand—for example, dealing with a printer to make the words come out properly on paper Um, no, the designers of the earliest computer programs used toggle switches and vaccuum tubes to calculate projectile trajectories. Printers? hahahaha! Forcing the human user to memorize complicated commands instead of using computer power to provide a menu listing them made economic sense. Um, how about, the technology for entering and displaying results simply didn't exist. The relative costs are now reversed, but almost everyone in the industry older than about 30 grew up in that type of environment. Um, I'm 44 (omg) and by the time I was 20, the $300 Commodore 64 was affordable, easy to use, etc. The author's concept of the environment that I grew up in is totally wrong. They became programmers because they're good at communicating with a microprocessor, the silicon chip at the heart of the machine. But the user interface, by definition, exists to communicate with an entirely different piece of hardware and software: a live human being. What a ridiculous generalization. Sure, we all make that assumption, but the people I've worked with are very real human beings with wives, husbands, dogs, children, etc. Anyways, I stopped reading. The author is a fool, and it's sad that he wrote such a book because it's unfounded, unresearched, unscientific, and he clearly doesn't understand the complexities and issues in, quite frankly, doing something that usually nobody else has done before: writing a piece of software to meet a need. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithBut you see the delicate mind of a programmer is a misunderstood one. I can see many IT managers (not programmers) picking up this book and finding it incredibly informative and a revolutionary concept (which is completely untrue). So I suggest that this author is either incredibly stupid, or incredibly intelligent. He has a very big market.
-
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004422 [^] Is this an accurate depiction? I don't think so. I think there are problems in the entire process, from end users, clients, customers, employers, managers down to the lowly developer. Blaming just one link in the chain is disingenuous. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll enjoy and be educated by your responses. Larry, the Lowly Developer
Nice article, saying some true things, but not "the truth". Programmers don't know their user and this is bad because they do "strange things". But users cannot be completely ignorant about programs and computers. The article contains an assertion: "You shouldn't have to know or care about her program's internal workings to use it successfully, as you shouldn't have to know or care whether your car's engine uses fuel injection or a carburetor in order to drive it." That's wrong. You cannot get the drive license knowing nothing about engines. You're not required to be a mechanic, but a little theory is required to pass the exams. The correct thing is find out a good compromise between how the user would like to work and how the machines actually works, and find the best price/performance ratio. Tools are not required to adapt t oevery user. After all, I don't know about "goofy screwdrivers".
2 bugs found. > recompile ... 65534 bugs found. :doh:
-
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004422 [^] Is this an accurate depiction? I don't think so. I think there are problems in the entire process, from end users, clients, customers, employers, managers down to the lowly developer. Blaming just one link in the chain is disingenuous. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll enjoy and be educated by your responses. Larry, the Lowly Developer
The thing I've found is the easier I try make my software easier to use the more stupid my average user becomes ;P
"a fool will not learn from a wise man, but a wise man will learn from a fool" "It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed." - Theodore Roosevelt "Success is going from failure to failure without losing your enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
-
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004422 [^] Is this an accurate depiction? I don't think so. I think there are problems in the entire process, from end users, clients, customers, employers, managers down to the lowly developer. Blaming just one link in the chain is disingenuous. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll enjoy and be educated by your responses. Larry, the Lowly Developer
I stopped reading after the first page, besides the fact that the title should be "Why SOME software sucks". The author, in his infinite abilities and wisdom, is generalizing the millions (or more) programs that can be defined as software. Any time someone lumps a large number of things into a category and tries to trash on them, I disregard what they have to say. Obviously this guy is just fed up by some non-working software and decided to write a book about it, go figure he is probably rich because of it :doh:
-
Nice article, saying some true things, but not "the truth". Programmers don't know their user and this is bad because they do "strange things". But users cannot be completely ignorant about programs and computers. The article contains an assertion: "You shouldn't have to know or care about her program's internal workings to use it successfully, as you shouldn't have to know or care whether your car's engine uses fuel injection or a carburetor in order to drive it." That's wrong. You cannot get the drive license knowing nothing about engines. You're not required to be a mechanic, but a little theory is required to pass the exams. The correct thing is find out a good compromise between how the user would like to work and how the machines actually works, and find the best price/performance ratio. Tools are not required to adapt t oevery user. After all, I don't know about "goofy screwdrivers".
2 bugs found. > recompile ... 65534 bugs found. :doh:
emilio_grv wrote:
That's wrong. You cannot get the drive license knowing nothing about engines. You're not required to be a mechanic, but a little theory is required to pass the exams.
Maybe where you live. Here in the US, drivers licence tests (mostly computerized now) are designed so that an illiterate idiot can pass. Only a rather minimal knowlege of traffic rules is expected. You are not required to know that an automobile even has an engine...
-
emilio_grv wrote:
That's wrong. You cannot get the drive license knowing nothing about engines. You're not required to be a mechanic, but a little theory is required to pass the exams.
Maybe where you live. Here in the US, drivers licence tests (mostly computerized now) are designed so that an illiterate idiot can pass. Only a rather minimal knowlege of traffic rules is expected. You are not required to know that an automobile even has an engine...
Rob Graham wrote:
You are not required to know that an automobile even has an engine...
it has WHAT???!! :omg: ;P;P;P
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004422 [^] Is this an accurate depiction? I don't think so. I think there are problems in the entire process, from end users, clients, customers, employers, managers down to the lowly developer. Blaming just one link in the chain is disingenuous. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll enjoy and be educated by your responses. Larry, the Lowly Developer
SlowFatRunner wrote:
Is this an accurate depiction?
No. and yes, minorly. As others have said, he is making sweeping generalizations and blame based on a few issues, as well as making assumptions as to why things were done, which is only making him the first syllable of assumption. Computers were difficult to use in the early years, because they didn't do much, but were required to do a lot! Mind you, this is a good thing, they made themselves important. The first computer had less memory, less "horsepower" computation-wise than almost any calculator you can buy at radio-shack for $10 today. He forgets that in saying the designers didn't care about making them easy. Easy costs horse-power, it takes time, it takes effort. When you are using all the horsepower of a computation engine to calculate military related activities, you are not going to give up response or accuracy for "easy", so they didn't. Easy came later, as machines grew, they grew easier. But as the saying goes, idiot proofing a user-interface is a battle between the programmer and the universe. The programmer is trying to make an idiot-proof user-interface with idiot-proof operation, and the universe is making bigger idiots. His reference to people who grew up in that age of computers, made me think he is referring to himself. He is blaming the rest of the world because he chose not to grow as computers grew, they are still those overly complicated mechanisms he assumed they always were.... he assumed, very important there. He assumed all computer programmers were the stereotypical jokes, completely unable to relate to human beings. Some are, most aren't. But by assuming that, because he hasn't adapted, that it is all someone else's fault, not his also. It sounds like my Mother knows more about computers than he does, only because she put in a "little" effort to learn. He obviously didn't. He wants computers to be intuitive to him, without any reguard to the fact that he might be a minority. Because computers grew in different routes than he would like, it is our fault, and he is right in not adapting. Sorry, I don't buy into it. He can blame who he wants, but that doesn't change the fact that he made some choices there too.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
I stopped reading after the first page, besides the fact that the title should be "Why SOME software sucks". The author, in his infinite abilities and wisdom, is generalizing the millions (or more) programs that can be defined as software. Any time someone lumps a large number of things into a category and tries to trash on them, I disregard what they have to say. Obviously this guy is just fed up by some non-working software and decided to write a book about it, go figure he is probably rich because of it :doh:
amclint wrote:
Obviously this guy is just fed up by some non-working software
No, because _he_ can't work it. There may be several million satisfied users, but he's not one of them. Consequently he had a lot of time on his hands. It just occurred to me... did he write it with a word processor? Or a typewriter?
-
SlowFatRunner wrote:
Is this an accurate depiction?
No. and yes, minorly. As others have said, he is making sweeping generalizations and blame based on a few issues, as well as making assumptions as to why things were done, which is only making him the first syllable of assumption. Computers were difficult to use in the early years, because they didn't do much, but were required to do a lot! Mind you, this is a good thing, they made themselves important. The first computer had less memory, less "horsepower" computation-wise than almost any calculator you can buy at radio-shack for $10 today. He forgets that in saying the designers didn't care about making them easy. Easy costs horse-power, it takes time, it takes effort. When you are using all the horsepower of a computation engine to calculate military related activities, you are not going to give up response or accuracy for "easy", so they didn't. Easy came later, as machines grew, they grew easier. But as the saying goes, idiot proofing a user-interface is a battle between the programmer and the universe. The programmer is trying to make an idiot-proof user-interface with idiot-proof operation, and the universe is making bigger idiots. His reference to people who grew up in that age of computers, made me think he is referring to himself. He is blaming the rest of the world because he chose not to grow as computers grew, they are still those overly complicated mechanisms he assumed they always were.... he assumed, very important there. He assumed all computer programmers were the stereotypical jokes, completely unable to relate to human beings. Some are, most aren't. But by assuming that, because he hasn't adapted, that it is all someone else's fault, not his also. It sounds like my Mother knows more about computers than he does, only because she put in a "little" effort to learn. He obviously didn't. He wants computers to be intuitive to him, without any reguard to the fact that he might be a minority. Because computers grew in different routes than he would like, it is our fault, and he is right in not adapting. Sorry, I don't buy into it. He can blame who he wants, but that doesn't change the fact that he made some choices there too.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
As others have said, he is making sweeping generalizations and blame based on a few issues, as well as making assumptions as to why things were done, which is only making him the first syllable of assumption.
That one goes into the sig machine. :laugh:
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
SlowFatRunner wrote:
Is this an accurate depiction?
No. and yes, minorly. As others have said, he is making sweeping generalizations and blame based on a few issues, as well as making assumptions as to why things were done, which is only making him the first syllable of assumption. Computers were difficult to use in the early years, because they didn't do much, but were required to do a lot! Mind you, this is a good thing, they made themselves important. The first computer had less memory, less "horsepower" computation-wise than almost any calculator you can buy at radio-shack for $10 today. He forgets that in saying the designers didn't care about making them easy. Easy costs horse-power, it takes time, it takes effort. When you are using all the horsepower of a computation engine to calculate military related activities, you are not going to give up response or accuracy for "easy", so they didn't. Easy came later, as machines grew, they grew easier. But as the saying goes, idiot proofing a user-interface is a battle between the programmer and the universe. The programmer is trying to make an idiot-proof user-interface with idiot-proof operation, and the universe is making bigger idiots. His reference to people who grew up in that age of computers, made me think he is referring to himself. He is blaming the rest of the world because he chose not to grow as computers grew, they are still those overly complicated mechanisms he assumed they always were.... he assumed, very important there. He assumed all computer programmers were the stereotypical jokes, completely unable to relate to human beings. Some are, most aren't. But by assuming that, because he hasn't adapted, that it is all someone else's fault, not his also. It sounds like my Mother knows more about computers than he does, only because she put in a "little" effort to learn. He obviously didn't. He wants computers to be intuitive to him, without any reguard to the fact that he might be a minority. Because computers grew in different routes than he would like, it is our fault, and he is right in not adapting. Sorry, I don't buy into it. He can blame who he wants, but that doesn't change the fact that he made some choices there too.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
He wants computers to be intuitive to him, without any reguard to the fact that he might be a minority
Exactly. One man's "intuitive" is another mans's "WTF"
-
Rob Graham wrote:
You are not required to know that an automobile even has an engine...
it has WHAT???!! :omg: ;P;P;P
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
What amazes me even more is that some people still fail the "written" (multiple guess on a computer screen, actually) part of the drivers exam...
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
He wants computers to be intuitive to him, without any reguard to the fact that he might be a minority
Exactly. One man's "intuitive" is another mans's "WTF"
Rob Graham wrote:
One man's "intuitive" is another mans's "WTF"
He probably is complaining why computers didn't have voice activation like star-trek did, when star-trek was born of the same age. He's probably still picking up the mouse and saying, "Computer, Computer" with a Scottish accent into the mouse's base....
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)