"Hadron" <hadronquark@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g0mojf$i1e$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The Natural Philosopher <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Ivan Marsh" <ivanmarsh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2008.05.16.18.37.28.500559@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:56:01 -0700, -hh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "dennis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <den...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>> ... no mention of vista gives you several choices including:
linux,
>>>>>>> Mac, XP, 98, 95, CE, pSOS, DOS, and loads of others. Choose the
>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>> one for the application and everything will be fine.
>>>>>> IIRC, the USN had been using NT on some of their ****ps a couple of
>>>>>> years
>>>>>> ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's some links:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.gcn.com/print/17_17/33727-1.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1998/07/13987>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
<http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/18007/windows-nt-sinks-navy-
>>>>>> ****p.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are all pretty dated; not sure if there's more current info
>>>>>> online
>>>>>> or not.
>>>>> Sorry... but the Yorktown meltdown had to do with a divide by zero
>>>>> error
>>>>> in the engine power interface when the operator entered zero into a
>>>>> data
>>>>> input field which was the fault of the person who programmed the
>>>>> control
>>>>> software and had nothing to do with the operating system.
>>>>>
>>>>> *This should in no way be misconstrued as an endorsement of windows.
I
>>>>> would not knowingly trust my life to a Microsoft OS.*
>>>> It still highlights the general poor quality of MS-Windows
>>>> programming methodologies spilling into serious software
>>>> development cycles and today's design techniques. While software
>>>> has become more complex, it is also true the teams developing it
>>>> are much larger, better funded and generally less disciplined. We
>>>> somehow think a business NET ad-hoc programmer makes a embedded
>>>> systems programmer, and that is a fallacy for greed.
>>>
>>> What a load of uninformed bull****.
>>
>> Sounds pretty accurate to me, having worked on just such teams in the
>> past.
>
> I was referring to the MS Windows programming methodologies comment. The
> "less disciplined" bit is crap too. Most projects are so damn
> disciplined these days they have certificates coming out of their cracks
> but very little SW. OSS is a different kettle of fish - almost zero
> discipline and "yet another copycat program" every other day.
A good process as squat to do with "certificates". In fact the best
people
I know in software engineering have degrees/diploma but no certifications,
they are viewed as a wasted effort in advanced levels of software
engineering. Certs are for those that are new, need to show they have a
minimum competency level. Any meaningful certifications are the ones for
the processes and the verification that they are being followed buy the
lab.
I was referring to the process of good software design. Requirements,
business cases, do***entation, cost analysis, risk, evolution of processes
in a full SQA model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Quality_Assurance
How many Microsoft shops have a working SQA modeled process? Many don't
even have a QA position, and if they do they are under funded and under
staffed often without written test plans. How many even have centrally
managed and monitored do***ent/source code control? Source Safe, LOL.
Coding is often ad-hoc and not peer reviewed. Lets not get into the lack
of
design do***entation, absence of solid planning, requirements and risk
analysis. How many Microsoft projects are on time? Vista anyone?
If you are writing command and control code for something like a nuclear
war****p, it isn't like your average I/T shop, or I hope not. Lets whip
out
some .NET and some XML because it is whey cool does not float, but might
get
you fired. Coding in a well designed and managed project is really just a
short mechanical exercise near the middle-end of the project cycle. On
time, on budget and delivers exactly what is required.
|
