Suddenly there's another 22 million users you have to take into account. That comfortable, "lazy" approach of desinging for the IE extensions just won't cut it anymore
So what, how 22 million AOL subscribers compares to the number of internet users worldwide. Biggest provider != majority of internet users (Thanks God!). Even if "the biggest provider" would push down their subscribers' throats some half-baked product, it would not change too much.
I know if I were designing a console or a web pad, Mozilla would be my first choice.
But you are not. I remeber some article (I am not sure where, though) about browser marked for various appliances and wireless devices. The only vendors mentioned were MS, Opera and Psion (trying as usually to cook something on their own). Netscape and Mozilla were just irrelevant to the subject.
Mixing coders and testers in the same group is just a bad idea on multiple levels.
Quite frankly, I still fail to see why. Mind you, I know usual explanations about desired independence of quality control etc. I just never agreed with this. Maybe because I never worked on a project involving 200 programmers in cravats. The point I would like to make is that tests should be derived from the design of the software and not from the observation of how it works after it was implemented. That implies, tests should be designed by (or with participation of) the person, who designed this stuff. If you use the above recursively, it will mean: tests should be created by a programmer, who develops (i.e. designs and implements) specific module. There are good reasons for this kind of organization, ant the best I have ever heard is that if you are unable to write a routine testing the your design that means, that you didn't understand the problem.
Another statement of yours:
Are you talking about mixing testing and design with coding? That's a bad idea.
No, it is not bad idea. I think that what I wrote above explains why, but I shall risk being redundant in hope to save one erring soul: I am not talking about final test. These are like final exams at a college: You have to pass them to be admitted somewhere, but passing them does not necesserily make you good at your profession. The problem is to make sure every single functional part was designed (and not conjured) and that implementation sticks to design. Good way to do it is to require a programmer to provide tests for her designs and of course to execute them ocassionaly (e.g. everytime something gets changed)
Next one:
How do you, in an automated fashon, track deviations unless you limit yourself to IO?
Every testing short of tracing code through a debugger is in the matter of fact limited to input and ouput (not to be confused with reading and writing to files). Like you feed a function (I don't mean a routine in some programming language) with data and see, what pops up on the other side. If you do it not on the highest level only, but wherever you expect problems to originate, life could be easier. Well, obviously, good judgement is necessary here, but, c'mon, we are all intelligent people here, aren't we?
You are missing the point. If you are implementing something, it can be beneficial to design it first;-). Then you can write test scripts that check, whether the code does exactly what it is intended to do. That implies, some sort of tests should be devised prior to writing code. When code changes (but its intent does not) there sould be no reason for rewriting test scripts. If they break it means, the code is flawed.
I believe, internet browser is sort of "commodity software" right now. I use Win2000 and Linux/KDE both at work and to conduct personal bussineses and I keep finding handy HTML browser built-in my desktop environment something essential. By the way, in my opinion it is one of essential flaws of DOJ argumentation - MS didn't harm consumers by bundling their browser with the system. They surely harmed Netscape (which was not without faul of its own), but at the same time they put HTML browser where it belongs. The bottom of this post is that it might prove irrelevant, who gets the browser. There is no browser market anymore. People want it with the system and consider it as something as necessary as file browser. If the "OS company" does not get the browser, they would have to come out with one - because their customers expect it. Consequently, the "application company" will have no reason to maintain product not needed by their customers - and therefore not bringing any direct or indirect revenue. So - they will ditch it.
Security of majority of IT systems owned by a commercial company is usually the primary concern neither for IT management nor for users. And I think, this is often justified (sometimes this is unforgivable stupidity, though).
In the matter of fact I am finding both Delphi and VB a triumph of so called "productivity" and marketing efforts over sanity and good engineering practices.
With that I cannot agree: Borland has a tradition of excellence.
Last time I tried to use their tools (early 92), I found them well - not-so-excellent. They actually s**ked big time. Pascal-like Pascals, lousy compilers optimized for speed of compilation mostly. Besides, they are yet to release any decent tool for Linux. Some bizzare marketing moves recently. For me they are manufacturer of tools for amateurs trying to make it for the major league. I wouldn't expect Borland to do anything for me (in terms of Linux development). As about Corel - well, yes, it is possible, they will die. I would be sad to see that, though. I need their apps. -M-
Slashdot Mirror
So what, how 22 million AOL subscribers compares to the number of internet users worldwide. Biggest provider != majority of internet users (Thanks God!). Even if "the biggest provider" would push down their subscribers' throats some half-baked product, it would not change too much.
But you are not. I remeber some article (I am not sure where, though) about browser marked for various appliances and wireless devices. The only vendors mentioned were MS, Opera and Psion (trying as usually to cook something on their own). Netscape and Mozilla were just irrelevant to the subject.
-M-
Quite frankly, I still fail to see why. Mind you, I know usual explanations about desired independence of quality control etc. I just never agreed with this. Maybe because I never worked on a project involving 200 programmers in cravats.
The point I would like to make is that tests should be derived from the design of the software and not from the observation of how it works after it was implemented. That implies, tests should be designed by (or with participation of) the person, who designed this stuff. If you use the above recursively, it will mean: tests should be created by a programmer, who develops (i.e. designs and implements) specific module.
There are good reasons for this kind of organization, ant the best I have ever heard is that if you are unable to write a routine testing the your design that means, that you didn't understand the problem.
Another statement of yours: No, it is not bad idea. I think that what I wrote above explains why, but I shall risk being redundant in hope to save one erring soul:
I am not talking about final test. These are like final exams at a college: You have to pass them to be admitted somewhere, but passing them does not necesserily make you good at your profession.
The problem is to make sure every single functional part was designed (and not conjured) and that implementation sticks to design. Good way to do it is to require a programmer to provide tests for her designs and of course to execute them ocassionaly (e.g. everytime something gets changed)
Next one: Every testing short of tracing code through a debugger is in the matter of fact limited to input and ouput (not to be confused with reading and writing to files). Like you feed a function (I don't mean a routine in some programming language) with data and see, what pops up on the other side. If you do it not on the highest level only, but wherever you expect problems to originate, life could be easier. Well, obviously, good judgement is necessary here, but, c'mon, we are all intelligent people here, aren't we?
Regards, -m-
You are missing the point. If you are implementing something, it can be beneficial to design it first ;-). Then you can write test scripts that check, whether the code does exactly what it is intended to do. That implies, some sort of tests should be devised prior to writing code.
When code changes (but its intent does not) there sould be no reason for rewriting test scripts. If they break it means, the code is flawed.
-m-
I believe, internet browser is sort of "commodity software" right now. I use Win2000 and Linux/KDE both at work and to conduct personal bussineses and I keep finding handy HTML browser built-in my desktop environment something essential.
By the way, in my opinion it is one of essential flaws of DOJ argumentation - MS didn't harm consumers by bundling their browser with the system. They surely harmed Netscape (which was not without faul of its own), but at the same time they put HTML browser where it belongs.
The bottom of this post is that it might prove irrelevant, who gets the browser. There is no browser market anymore. People want it with the system and consider it as something as necessary as file browser. If the "OS company" does not get the browser, they would have to come out with one - because their customers expect it.
Consequently, the "application company" will have no reason to maintain product not needed by their customers - and therefore not bringing any direct or indirect revenue.
So - they will ditch it.
- M -
Security of majority of IT systems owned by a commercial company is usually the primary concern neither for IT management nor for users.
And I think, this is often justified (sometimes this is unforgivable stupidity, though).
-M-
In the matter of fact I am finding both Delphi and VB a triumph of so called "productivity" and marketing efforts over sanity and good engineering practices.
-M-
With that I cannot agree:
Borland has a tradition of excellence.
Last time I tried to use their tools (early 92), I found them well - not-so-excellent. They actually s**ked big time. Pascal-like Pascals, lousy compilers optimized for speed of compilation mostly.
Besides, they are yet to release any decent tool for Linux.
Some bizzare marketing moves recently. For me they are manufacturer of tools for amateurs trying to make it for the major league.
I wouldn't expect Borland to do anything for me (in terms of Linux development). As about Corel - well, yes, it is possible, they will die. I would be sad to see that, though. I need their apps.
-M-