See below, please. regards,
Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave McGuire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > On Sep 5, 2008, at 5:20 PM, Richard Erlacher wrote: >> One can only file a bug report if one finds what's known to be a >> bug. If >> you don't know what the code is intended to do, you can't possibly >> know >> whether what you've observed is outside that scope. > > If it generates bad output, or drops core... > How would you know that? > >> expend effort on it. I'm willing to do that despite the fact I'll >> probably >> never use it commercially, as I don't believe in using HLL's for >> small code. >> However, it does beg for a documentation cleanup/update. > > I hope you're not suggesting that C is a "high level" language. > Of course it's possible that I'm just becoming argumentative. ;) > >>> Software development is an artistic and evolutionary process, not >>> a step-by-step "pull this lever, push that button" process. The >>> sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll be able to...write some >>> code. >>> >> I've been writing code since the early '60's and certainly have to >> disagree. > > Well your experience outstrips mine, having only written code > since the early 1980s, but I'm still willing to bet that we're among > the most experienced here. I stand by my assertion; we may have to > agree to disagree. > >> While generation of software is a creative process, its proper >> execution is >> subject to rigorous engineering procedures. It's not the artsy-fartsy >> process that many dilletante's imagine it to be. That's why, >> unlike U.S. >> software houses, the Japanese houses, for example, have, for >> decades, been >> bringing huge software efforts in ahead of schedule and under >> budget, while >> U.S. producers are typically 200-300% over both budget and schedule. > > U.S. "producers" tend to be companies full of procedure-oriented > suits instead of goal-oriented thinking people. That's why. Again, > we may have to agree to disagree. Commercial U.S. software > developers are too mired in their procedures to ever get anything > useful accomplished. Case in point, the largest of them all: > Microsoft. The company that consistently churns out volumes of the > most poorly-written code the industry has ever seen. Of course, some > profit-minded small thinker is going to pop up and say "yes, but > they're so RICH!" ...well, look at how they got that way. It wasn't > from writing quality software. > I don't know about the suits, but procedure-oriented people turn out the satisfactory product within schedule and budget almost all the time. If that's not goal-oriented, well ... Now, whom it satisfies, well, that's another question. > > On the other hand....This is a mail server that I'm responsible > for; it handles inbound and outbound email for about twelve hundred > people, switching roughly 300K messages per day: > > mail.coconet.com$ uptime > 22:47:59 up 214 days, 11:46, 1 user, load average: 2.07, 1.30, 1.42 > > And one of the nameservers I run, handling about 700K DNS queries > per day: > > ns.coconet.com$ uptime > 10:49pm up 555 day(s), 22:55, 1 user, load average: 1.04, 1.03, > 1.03 > > The first machine runs Linux, the second runs Solaris/UltraSPARC. > Neither OS is developed using the stiff-assed, unproductive, > procedure-oriented development methodology that you claim is some > sort of a requirement for writing software. Microsoft, however, does > follow your methodology. > > I rest my case. > You may not like that approach, Dave, but it's the way that leads via the shortest path, from analysis to satisfied tests. It does require that you, the programmer, write what's required and ONLY what's required. > >> Telling me to "swim for it" isn't going to lead in that direction. > > It wasn't meant like that, and you know it. You have a mailing > list full of regular SDCC users here who have offered to help you > through any problems that you may run into. Even I, a person who > you've pissed off in other forums time and time again, have sincerely > offered assistance. Instead, you've chosen to waste your energy on > this discussion for DAYS now. > Well, I've picked up a bit of information but little of it deals with what the software is actually supposed to do and how it's supposed to do that, viewed from the user's perspective. > > This is tickling a vague and disturbing memory. Maybe nine years > ago, someone on the classiccmp list loudly made the absurd assertion > that "only 5% of software development is writing code". I responded > by stating that that person would never, ever work for me. Was that > you? > Very possibly, but the 5% includes design, development, and debugging. Analysis, reviews, and documentation precede that task, and consume most of the remaining 90%, with at least 5% for rigorous testing. I agree that M$ doesn't do the testing. > > -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
