On Sep 5, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>> With no documented
>>> specifications, there's no way to show that their work is
>>> defective, so they
>>> like doing things that way.
>>
>> That's an awfully big stretch. I, as a programmer, write damn
>> good code...and terrible documentation. That's because I'm a
>> PROGRAMMER, not a writer.
>>
> Do you program to a set of requirements, or do you simply imagine
> what you
> want to write and then, when you think you've finished, accept what
> you
> have, regardless of what it does? How do you know that you've done
> what you
> set out to do? In fact, how do you know you've finished? After
> that, how
> do you verify that it works as it should? There's a huge
> difference between
> trial and testing, doncha know!
If it meets the desired goal, it's finished. It's as simple as
that. I get the impression that you like to document, justify,
exhaustively analyze, and probably have meetings about every single
function or subroutine. This is not how software is written in the
real world.
>> Richard, you talk like someone who has been "suitified" for far
>> too long. There was a big push in the 1970s to over-formalize
>> software development, which is where this obsession with "specs" came
>> from. It died in the 1980s. Go write some code!
>>
> As I recall, in the early '70's, at which time I did write code
> (mostly
> FORTRAN) for a living, at least part of the time, things were VERY
> formal.
...which is probably why software technology has been lagging that
of hardware since that time...
> It was going into the '80's that things became "fast and loose."
> The result
> was that folks wrote software that wasn't needed, incorporated
> features, and
> the associated failures, that weren't required, and generated huge
> schedule
> and budget overruns.
...and gave us Windows, with which some of the world is still
inexplicably stuck. Then, serious, thinking programmers threw their
managers out of the building, sat down, and wrote serious code. Now
we have modern operating systems and application software that run
correctly, and we get useful work done.
One of those pieces of application software is SDCC. Many people
here use it to great advantage. You could, too, if you'd only quit
evangelizing your long-dead, never-productive procedure-oriented
methodology and...WRITE SOME DAMN CODE!
> BTW, Last time I wore a suit was to go to a funeral, and, in fact,
> that was
> the last 3 times. Next time, I hope it will be to my own. I've
> never liked
> neckties and the associated "appearance over substance" culture.
In that case, I apologize for my implication, and we stand in
agreement regarding that bit of culture. I was responding to what I
saw that "looked and quacked like a duck", if you know what I mean.
> I'd point out that you've gone on and on but suggested nothing that
> would
> lead to better documentation.
>
> I'm still reading ... and hoping someone comes up with something I
> can use
> to further that goal.
If you describe what particular difficulty you're hitting, people
here (even I, someone who's about ready to wring your neck) will do
their very best to help you. If you truly do wish to reach the goal
of useful tools used for developing useful firmware, you'll gladly
accept that help. If not, well..
-Dave
>
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Sdcc-user mailing list
Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
