Interesting article for you

Post #20,925 by drewk 12/10/01 2:34:34 PM Reply	Interesting article for you Yes, it is possible for humans to codify not just the what, but also the why of what they write. Take a look at [link\|http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html\|how NASA does it]. The conclusions shouldn't be surprising, though you don't see them often: Programming is a profession, and should be done in a professional manner. Programming isn't "special," in need of gurus and all-nighters. Nothing important should be left to a single person from beginning to end, ever. Not that this is much direct help for your situation, but a good background against which to make decisions. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #21,036 by broomberg 12/11/01 3:48:58 PM Reply	No way If you have an almost infinite budget, and lives at stake, maybe. But the concept of "good enough" is a real one. But it is a grey area. NT bluescreens are good enough for some people, 1 year uptime for others. What are you willing to pay for? What are your customers willing to pay for? How long are you willing to wait? What is good enough for the guy writing the check? End of story.
Post #21,046 by drewk 12/11/01 4:26:23 PM Reply	The question was, "Is it possible?" The thing I like about the article is that it questions the assumption that just about everyone seems to make: that IT in general, and software development in particular, is done the way it is because it's the only way it can be done. This article shows that, given the proper incentives, it can be done as "flawlessly" as other "critical" functions. With very rare exceptions, multi-million dollar projects should not be entrusted to "kids" fresh out of school, as many seem to be. When managment is ready to treat IT as a critical function, maybe they will put the money into it. None of this changes your situation, just a rant. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tired of being told it has to be right, and there's no more time or money in the budget. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #21,069 by a6l6e6x 12/11/01 5:24:36 PM Reply	Right on, Drew! "There's not enough time to do it right the first time". "But, there's always time to do it over again". And, again, and again,... Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #21,095 by broomberg 12/11/01 7:39:46 PM Reply	I used to think I was REALLY good This meant I really cared about getting the design and code right, and bugs were a personal failure. I accepted that I would have a rare one, and that it would be fixed immediately. This was in about 30,000 lines of pointer heavy 'C' and Oracle Pro-C code. Bugs meant core dumps. It was rare that a user would experience it, since the OS would kill my program way before then. This was when I was responsible for the design and coding of an in-house editorial system that had 30 active editorial users, and produced monthly data dumps that were then published on Compuserve, CD-ROM, and printed book. I had 1 bad output in 3 years, and was fixed in 24 hours. My users never lost one byte of data, even in the event of hardware failure. Now I do junk mail. Dead trees. Marketing databases. Fuzzy yucky data, where there is a percentage of known bad data, it as long as it is under the magical max, it is ok. ok. ok. ewwwwww. I gotta go wash my hands. But: I've got to hit the print date. I've got hundreds of people at various companies sitting and idling if I miss the print date. So as long as it is good enough, it really is "good enough".
Post #21,369 by drewk 12/13/01 3:24:25 PM Reply	Your exception IMO proves the rule Someone looks at the cost to produce cleaner data, and where this line croses the cost of delaying the mailing. At that point, it's "good enough." I strongly suspect most decisions don't have nearly this clear a metric by which to define "good enough," yet the call is made anyway. Beyond that, my comments were more directed to the process than the actual decision. If, as I said, someone is willing to trust a project to a wet, pink newbie they have just proven through action that they don't really think it's that important. You are obviously not a newbie (though I won't comment on your pinkness or wetness). They are willing to pay for you. When they give your job to a PFY to save money, that's when "good enough" is a fool's bargain. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #21,060 by a6l6e6x 12/11/01 5:14:52 PM Reply	Interesting article indeed. Thanks! It takes money, time, and discipline to do it right. The process needs a high perceived cost of failure to make it work. Can you imagine being able to sue Microsoft for damages of every Outlook exploit that one suffers? The current license absolves them of responsibility and there is no associated cost. However, you may recall the NASA fast-track Mars mission fiasco where one sub-system used the metric system of measurements and another the English (actually just US and one third world country) measurement system. (If you read this, control yourself, Andrew!) Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Welcome to IWETHEY!