 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4816455a$1@news.povray.org...
>
> [In seriousness though... Apple claim their software is easy to use.
> They don't claim that buying there software will magically turn you into
> a developer. M$ claim exactly that.]
>
Wanna give a reference for that?
I know VB is "easy to learn", but easy to learn != no learning necessary.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> That's because it is against the law to allow a child to drive a car.
> Otherwise ? :(
IMO it should be against the law to allow people to code without the
proper training, expertise and qualification tests... :P
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Very interesting but what do you expect when it is safety related and
> not commercial?
I think that was sort of the point, except mayhaps a slight confusion on
the conclusion. Not "we do this because it's safety-critical", but "it
won't be safe until you start doing it this way." A slightly different
way of thinking, perhaps.
> I've worked on lots of hardware that were "safety critical" and the
> software was seldom updated.
Yes, because it's so hard to get right the first time if you don't do it
right.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> I've worked on lots of hardware that were "safety critical" and the
>> software was seldom updated.
>
> Yes, because it's so hard to get right the first time if you don't do it
> right.
That was a bit disjointed. It doesn't get updated because it's hard to
get the updates right if you don't follow the right process to make sure
it happens.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:48164d08@news.povray.org...
> Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> > That's because it is against the law to allow a child to drive a car.
> > Otherwise ? :(
>
> IMO it should be against the law to allow people to code without the
> proper training, expertise and qualification tests... :P
Agreed. If we want to call it Software Engineering, then it should be
treated like any of the other engineering disciplines
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:51:25 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Darren New wrote:
>>> I've worked on lots of hardware that were "safety critical" and the
>>> software was seldom updated.
>>
>> Yes, because it's so hard to get right the first time if you don't do it
>> right.
>
>That was a bit disjointed. It doesn't get updated because it's hard to
>get the updates right if you don't follow the right process to make sure
>it happens.
I meant that they don't often get updated because the programmers got
it right first time. Maybe I should mention that I'm not thinking
about pc based systems.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> I meant that they don't often get updated because the programmers got
> it right first time. Maybe I should mention that I'm not thinking
> about pc based systems.
That too. Of course, when what you want changes, you have to balance the
cost of making that change and being assured of getting it right against
the value you get from making the change. Which is what I was saying. :-)
I don't think the shuttle programs are such that this month's flight
being successful means they don't have to change the software for next
month's flight, for example.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:35:05 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>
>That too. Of course, when what you want changes, you have to balance the
>cost of making that change and being assured of getting it right against
>the value you get from making the change. Which is what I was saying. :-)
>
OK, so we weren't arguing. Good.
>I don't think the shuttle programs are such that this month's flight
>being successful means they don't have to change the software for next
>month's flight, for example.
I suppose that moving a small town's worth of pipe-work involves a few
changes, now and again. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> IMO it should be against the law to allow people to code without the
> proper training, expertise and qualification tests... :P
No argument here...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> IMO it should be against the law to allow people to code without the
>> proper training, expertise and qualification tests... :P
>
> No argument here...
Not until software prices go up as a result...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
