"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47b07dd9@news.povray.org...
> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/SUCSESS.aspx
>
> So, so wrong...
>
> Of course, the *real* WTF is that final sentence: Even though this is
> complete garbage, I couldn't convince my boss because the application
> "works". (!!)

"Works" Definition: Does (mostly) what the users expect. Doesn't contain
(too many) bugs. Doesn't (often) crash.

Way too common an attitude. In commercial programming, any time not spent
working toward the next version/next application/next feature is time
wasted, as customers don't pay for pretty code. They pay for features (often
features that they'll never use, but take comfort in having)

I'm still fighting for a redesign and rewrite of the ball of garbage that
went into my system last year. Everyone says its a good idea, but can't seem
to find the tome to do it. Instead they're busy with new features, like
partially overnormalising a table (it's heading for 5th normal form) and
planning a server upgrade (from a 12 proc server with 48GB memory to a 8
proc server with 8 GB memory)

The only time fixes are prioritised is when a large number of users are
complaining very loudly.

Post a reply to this message