Take a look at, for example,

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Topgrade,-SHA1-Encryption.aspx

The website is of course /full/ of this kind of absurdity. (That's kind 
of why it exists, after all.)

The question is, why does this kind of nonsense only happen in IT?

Suppose the local government wants to build a bridge across a large 


go with the last one?? WTF?! No! Nobody *ever* does this!

And yet, this is exactly equivalent to what happened in the IT story.

Similarly, TDWTF is replete with examples of people hiring some doofus 
who obviously knows nothing about computers to build large applications. 
That's like hiring an idiot to design a skyscraper for you. And then 
finding out that it collapses a tenth of the way through construction, 
because it's held up by cheese instead of iron girders. What moron would 
hire such a person?

When somebody wants a bridge building, or a house designing, or a road 
laying, or whatever, they hire professional people. OK, I'm sure there's 
plenty of stories of mix-ups and projects that went way over budget or 
time scale. But you don't hear of this nonsense where idiots with no 
clue produce an obviously unacceptable product and still get paid.

So if it doesn't happen in structural engineering, why the hell does it 
constantly happen in software engineering?

Post a reply to this message

> So if it doesn't happen in structural engineering, why the hell does it
> constantly happen in software engineering?

Let's take a look at the common themes of TDWTF:

1. People who think they are "experts", when they are not.

2. People who convince others that they are "experts", when they are not.

3. People with unrealistic expectations about software development.

The more I think of it, the more it seems that almost everything that is 
wrong with defective software development stems from these three 
fundamentals.

There are plenty of stories about awful code written by "the previous 
employee". This is usually due to the previous employee simply being an 
extremely bad programmer. Sometimes the person doesn't realise how bad 
they are; they honestly think they're the best. And sometimes they know 
damned well that they're terrible, they're just very good at convincing 
everybody else that they're brilliant.

There are also lots of stories about perfectly competent programmers 
forced to write absurd code because of decrees by management, the lead 
programmer, or some other figure. Again, this person thinks they know it 
all, and they don't.

Finally, there are the stories about code written under ludicrous 
circumstances. Like, you tell your boss a certain feature will take 6 
months to develop, and they demand that the code be finished by tomorrow 
evening. Or you tell the customer the project will cost X million, and 
they demand that you do it for a hundredth of the cost. Or sales promise 
that XYZ can be done in a week, when really it should take years to write.

And then there are those poor unfortunate souls who have to maintain 
code so ancient it should have been thrown away decades ago. If you take 
/any/ body of code and try to modify it too far beyond its original 
design goals, the result is bound to end up being a monstrosity, no 
matter how good you are. Usually you can attribute this to management's 
refusal to allow a rewrite. In other words, management think they know 
more about software than you do.

So all of these problems basically come down to the three points above.



Now, as far as I can tell, points 1 and 2 *definitely* occur in all 
sorts of industries. I don't think 3 happens so much. (E.g., if somebody 
tells you it will take 5 years to build a large bridge, you don't order 
them to have it done by Tuesday.)

So why does IT abound with defective products, whereas other industries 
don't?

I mean, sure, there are defective electronics on the market. But when 
was the last time you bought a microwave oven, got it home and found out 
that it doesn't actually contain a microwave generator, it just uses a 
fan to waft the warm air from the transformer in the general direction 
of your food? This *never* happens! And yet TDWTF regularly catalogues 
the woes of people using million-dollar software written in QBASIC or 
whatever.

After meditating on this, I've come up with a couple of reasons.

1. If your microwave oven is defective, you damned well take it back and 
demand a refund. If your software is defective, you have to click on a 
box that said "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS-IS AND COMES WITH ABSOLUTELY 
NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED."

2. It costs money to manufacture a microwave oven. You need specialist 
equipment and expensive materials and so on. On the other hand /anybody/ 
can write computer software and attempt to sell it.

3. A bridge built by a moron with no knowledge of structural engineering 
looks /nothing like/ a bridge built by professionals. (For one thing, 
it's probably snapped in half already.) Software written by a complete 
moron can sometimes superficially appear just as professional as 
software written by experts.

4. If you build a house and it collapses, you can pretty much guarantee 
that it was your fault. If you write some software and it doesn't work, 
you can complain "It's a conflict with your AV software. You're version 
of Windows is too old. It's a known issue; the next paid-for upgrade 
fixes it. You're using the software wrong. That's an optional extra 
which you haven't purchased..."

Anybody else have any suggestions?

Better yet, how do we /fix/ this nonsense?

Post a reply to this message

On 8/18/2011 8:04, Invisible wrote:
> The question is, why does this kind of nonsense only happen in IT?

Because IT is all virtual. Nobody who doesn't understand what's going on 
knows how to evaluate the results.

Someone can look at a bridge across a wide river and say "Heck, no way any 
sane person can build it for $4000."  But there's no concept there for software.

Plus, people will request changes and expect they're trivial. But sometimes 
it's like saying "I know you're half way through building the 50-story 
office building, but can we add another floor above the third floor, and 
move the elevators to the other side?"  Nobody would make a request like 
that and expect it to be 1/50th the cost of the building to add another 
floor in the middle, but people are happy to do that with software. That's 
why my rule of thumb is to try to structure software so the naive intuition 
about how much work it'll take roughly matches how much work it'll actually 
take.

> So if it doesn't happen in structural engineering, why the hell does it
> constantly happen in software engineering?

Because people understand physics, and they don't understand informatics. 
Plus, people doing structural stuff like that aren't doing something 
entirely new, but people don't duplicate what's already done in software. 
Floor 35 of a 50-story building will probably take as long to build as floor 
34 of a 50-story building. But nobody does that stuff in software, because 
you'd just make each floor a subroutine.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 18/08/2011 08:51 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/18/2011 8:04, Invisible wrote:
>> The question is, why does this kind of nonsense only happen in IT?
>
> Because IT is all virtual. Nobody who doesn't understand what's going on
> knows how to evaluate the results.

I suppose that's it then.

> Someone can look at a bridge across a wide river and say "Heck, no way
> any sane person can build it for $4000." But there's no concept there
> for software.

So, like I said, a bridge built by idiots looks nothing like a bridge 
built by professionals, but software built by idiots sometimes /does/ 
look like the stuff the professionals build.

>> So if it doesn't happen in structural engineering, why the hell does it
>> constantly happen in software engineering?
>
> Because people understand physics, and they don't understand
> informatics.

I guess that's what it comes down to.

And yet, you can tell the difference between a video shot by a couple of 
students and edited in their bedroom, verses one shot as part of a 
multi-million dollar film production. And nobody would expect to be able 
to produce Hollywood-class results on a £25 budget. That's fairly 
virtual. I've even seen videos on YouTube with blockbuster-style digital 
effects. And yet, you can still tell it's not the work of a pro.

> Plus, people doing structural stuff like that aren't doing
> something entirely new, but people don't duplicate what's already done
> in software.

I'm not sure that's *completely* true.

 From time to time, somebody builds something that's truly 
ground-breaking. The world's tallest building, perhaps. Or the longest 
bridge. Or whatever.

And while no two pieces of software are /exactly/ alike, lots of them 
are extremely damned similar. How many compilers are there? How many 
relational database engines? How many Java VM implementations? How many 
versions of the MP3 codec? Need I go on?

Still, I take your point.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
....
> Suppose the local government wants to build a bridge across a large


> go with the last one?? WTF?! No! Nobody *ever* does this!
....
> So if it doesn't happen in structural engineering, why the hell does it
> constantly happen in software engineering?


cases where software companies are ready, willing and eager to charge many, many
times the amount that actually needs to be spent in order to achieve what the

and sell them to anyone who will buy them.  If we manage to sell one to someone


technically unskilled buyers for suspecting that one or more software vendors
are trying to bamboozle them into spending large multiples of the actual
necessary amount. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

And for those who would reply:

individuals who only want to be paid a fair price for the products they work
hard to produce. There are just a few bad apples out there unjustly tarnishing

I would very much appreciate it if you would supply me with the name and
coordinates (preferably GCS) of the planet on which you are living.

The REAL problem, as I see it, is the pig-headed unwillingness of so many
corporate executives to employ people who actually KNOW whether $4,000.00
software or $4,000,000.00 software is needed and allow them to make the purchase
decisions.

I do know even more about how to solve this problem permanently, but I would

detailing this solution could be YOURS in only six months for a mere
$285,000.00.*

Best Regards,
Mike C.
Chief Supervising Consultant
Elder Pontification Group
(D.B.A. Atlantian Snake Oil Distributors)

Post a reply to this message

On 19/08/2011 02:21 PM, Mike the Elder wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> ....
>> Suppose the local government wants to build a bridge across a large


>> go with the last one?? WTF?! No! Nobody *ever* does this!
>

> cases where software companies are ready, willing and eager to charge many, many
> times the amount that actually needs to be spent in order to achieve what the
> customer really needs.

Yeah, there is that.










(I still remember going into a suit shop. They have multiple racks of 
identical black suits. I pick up one that looks roughly my size. "Ah 
yes, an excellent choice, sir" the man says. I wonder, is there a suit I 
could have picked up that was /not/ an excellent choice?)


plate was plain white with a yellow circle in the centre. It was in a 
Royal Doulton shop. ASDA can probably sell you a nearly identical one 


> The REAL problem, as I see it, is the pig-headed unwillingness of so many
> corporate executives to employ people who actually KNOW whether $4,000.00
> software or $4,000,000.00 software is needed and allow them to make the purchase
> decisions.

...and again we're back to "people who think they are experts but aren't"...

> I do know even more about how to solve this problem permanently, but I would

> detailing this solution could be YOURS in only six months for a mere
> $285,000.00.*
>
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.
> Chief Supervising Consultant
> Elder Pontification Group
> (D.B.A. Atlantian Snake Oil Distributors)
>


Tempting, but...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:



>



It all depends on what you expect of the car/watch/whatever.
If you expect the car to take you from B to B with reasonable comfort and speed,


afford, that's purely for the showoffs ;o)
It will do so with a lot more comfort, speed and other amenities.
Ask yourself why you bought your car and not something for half the price,
assuming equal reliability and running cost. It's most likely comforts like
electric windows, radio, power steering, air conditioning.


>

>

quartz. Change the battery every few years and you're good to go.

probably still run perfectly in 100 or 200 years. It's also a question of
presentation. You wouldn't expect the CEO of a multi billion dollar enterprise
to go to a buissness meeting wearing a cheap plastic watch.


Why? Comfort again.
It's one with solar and DCF and date and weekday display and timezones and so
on.
So I'll never have to worry if it's showing the correct time or runs out of
battery.
I push a button and it'll tell me if it synced with the atomic clock last night.
Traveling outside my timezone? No problem. Change the timezone and the watch
automatically sets the right time and DCF Transmitter.

What it all comes down to:
How much are you willing to spend for some comfort, quality and uniqueness.

Regards
Aydan

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.08.2011 15:21, schrieb Mike the Elder:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> ....
>> Suppose the local government wants to build a bridge across a large


>> go with the last one?? WTF?! No! Nobody *ever* does this!
> ....
>> So if it doesn't happen in structural engineering, why the hell does it
>> constantly happen in software engineering?
>

> cases where software companies are ready, willing and eager to charge many, many
> times the amount that actually needs to be spent in order to achieve what the

> and sell them to anyone who will buy them.  If we manage to sell one to someone


> technically unskilled buyers for suspecting that one or more software vendors
> are trying to bamboozle them into spending large multiples of the actual
> necessary amount. IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

Another problem is that big companies understand why their 
custom-tailored software must necessarily eat more IT funds than a copy 
of MS Office, but small companies are often surprised when they find it 
costs a lot more to introduce some off-the-shelf business software into 
their business processes.

> And for those who would reply:

> individuals who only want to be paid a fair price for the products they work
> hard to produce. There are just a few bad apples out there unjustly tarnishing

> I would very much appreciate it if you would supply me with the name and
> coordinates (preferably GCS) of the planet on which you are living.

Software industry managers are managers after all, so what do people 
expect :-)

> The REAL problem, as I see it, is the pig-headed unwillingness of so many
> corporate executives to employ people who actually KNOW whether $4,000.00
> software or $4,000,000.00 software is needed and allow them to make the purchase
> decisions.
>
> I do know even more about how to solve this problem permanently, but I would

> detailing this solution could be YOURS in only six months for a mere
> $285,000.00.*

Worse yet, IT consulting companies typically try to not only sell 
consultancy, but also the resulting project; so they might for instance 
recommend a solution based on project ABC rather than XYZ just because 
they recently had some ABC project exploding in their face and now try 
to get half a dozen idle ABC experts billable again.

Post a reply to this message

On 19/08/2011 03:32 PM, Aydan wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:



>>


>
> It all depends on what you expect of the car/watch/whatever.

Perhaps.

In same cases, a more expensive item actually does something more. In 
other cases, it's more expensive simply to be more expensive.


more expensive than gold chain. There is absolutely no reason to ever 


That's just preying on customer stupidity.



of a lot longer.

> Ask yourself why you bought your car and not something for half the price,
> assuming equal reliability and running cost.

That would be "because of reliability and running costs". :-P

I have a very cheap car. Anything cheaper would be likely to break even 
more frequently than what I actually bought.



Now, see, I've heard that some of the most expensive cars on the market 
are actually pathologically unreliable. And also have really, *really* 
bad customer service. Which isn't what you'd expect...


>>

> quartz. Change the battery every few years and you're good to go.



kept breaking. Constantly.

> It's also a question of
> presentation. You wouldn't expect the CEO of a multi billion dollar enterprise
> to go to a buissness meeting wearing a cheap plastic watch.




the brand name.



I'm the sort of person who doesn't mind paying more money for something 
IF IT'S ACTUALLY BETTER. I violently object to paying more money for the 
same thing.

> What it all comes down to:
> How much are you willing to spend for some comfort, quality and uniqueness.

Agreed.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/19/2011 1:34, Invisible wrote:
>  From time to time, somebody builds something that's truly ground-breaking.
> The world's tallest building, perhaps. Or the longest bridge. Or whatever.

Even the world's tallest building is essentially the same story, using the 
same structural characteristics, repeated 200 times.

> And while no two pieces of software are /exactly/ alike, lots of them are
> extremely damned similar.

Sadly so. But it's an ongoing task to factor that similarity out.

> How many compilers are there?

Sure. But how many now all compile down to CIL or JVM, eliminating half of 
the work of implementing the compiler by clever reuse of code?

> How many relational database engines?

Again, eliminating the duplication of that effort in the file I/O of lots of 
programs.

Programmers don't always succeed in not reusing code. But they strive to do so.

Also, you're looking at it wrong again. How many times does the Microsoft C# 
compiler get reused? How many times does the plumbing from the 23rd floor of 
the Empire state building get reused?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message