...but it is well documented that the requirements and design effort swamp the coding effort in the process of delivering software. I've worked at two companies so far in my carreer where the product was commercial software. Unless you are building an application that programmers will use, one really needs to enlist domain experts to determine what features will be effective. As an example, I developed a number of commercial applications that are used by electron microscopists in performing quality control on prototype integrated circuits. It succeeded not because my manager was a software developer with a Princeton education but because our resident microscopists told me exactly what the tool needed to do based on years of experience in the field.
Now, this tool can be purchased and it's features can be copied...but certainly I never could have built this thing myself from scratch as my background is in computer science and software engineering.
IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with copying features. In fact, if I were looking for an OSS tool like the one I described above - I think the most important thing I could say about it is that it is just like "X", except it's free (as in beer/speech/or whatever.)
Lastly, it seems to me that since requirements and design consume so much effort/time/expense that one reasonable lifecycle for an application is..
1. Domain experts recognise the opportunity to automate some aspect of their work based upon years of experience in the field
2. They invest the effort/time/expense in developing the requirements/features and create a proprietary application which the sell for $$$ for as long as they can
3. Eventually, other commercial proprietary apps are available with added improvements to compete...so less $$$ available
4. Over time, the set of requirements for this type of tool become known by all.
5. Once the requirements/feature are common knowlege, OSS replicates the tool and the world is a better place.
Clearly, OSS has produced original work that never went through a commercial cycle. But there is no shame in copying features. As Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."
If somebody wants to share IP with the world then they are unAmerican, communitsts, and dirty hippies. But if M$ wants to steal IP from Sendo then that's just capitalism.
The "Silver Bullet" Kitty is referring to here is the seminal work No Silver Bullet - Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering written by Frederick P. Brooks. If you are a "young" developer then reading and understanding this paper will start you on the road to being an "old" developer.
One of the main points is that "coding" the application is actually a small percentage of the overall time and cost of delivering non-trivial applications. Because of this, improvements in the software development process that are directed towards the "coding" aspect will necessarily be somewhat inconsequential - much to the chagrin of tool vendors and the IS managers that willingly believe their vendorspeak.
The much much larger part of your budget and flow-time will be consumed by requirements analysis and system design (leaving out maintenance for now.) So even if some new tool reduces your "coding" time by 50% (fat chance), 50% of - say - 20% is still not THAT big of a deal. And lets face it... switching from ASP/VB6 to.NET will probably not reduce your "coding" time anywhere near 50%.
To have a dramatic improvement, you need to go after the "big rocks" first....requirements analysis and system architecture/design.
BTW, Extreme Programming is not about skipping requirements definition. It's about doing meaningful and efficient requirements definition which they believe can best be accomplished by delivering production quality iterations on development projects using evolutionary rapid prototyping (see Structured Rapid Prototyping by John L. Connell and Linda Brice Shafer.)
I find it interesting that with all the work that has been published on XP, that they only NOW are addressing the issues of incorporating database issues into the methodology. And make no mistake about it, if they can not incorporate databases in the way that the article describes - well that pretty much hurts it as a viable methodology for most data intensive business applications. Now, assuming that the inventors of XP intended their methodology to include this most important class of application, it seems almost foolhardy to have gone this far without addressing this database issue much sooner. Hey - but that's what they get for not doing their requirements first!
Absolute hogwash. I've been in this business for 20 years and interviewed developers for probably 100 openings. When I see no formal computer science education I put that resume on the bottom of the pile. Not all entry-level CS majors are ready to hit the ground running but at least you know that they have been exposed to a broad range of programming and software engineering topics. And in my experience, it's the physics and EE folks that I have had the most problems with.
I believe the biggest problem in our industry today is bad IS management. In my experience, IS managers without formal CS education are the reason that IS fails to meet business expectations. And I sense a lot of 'tude from the poster...probably does not have a CS degree and wants to get back at those who do.
Computers are changing EVERYTHING. Just because we do not know how to use them does not mean that they are not effective.
Yes compuers most certainly do change everything. You can find out just about anything you want from the internet at little or no cost. Learning how to find information on the web is a useful thing to teach.
But the next comment is plain unsubstantiated uninformed hyperbole. You say...
Our modern education system sucks. Absolutly, positivly sucks. All it does is turn a majority of students completly off of knowledge. It does not encourage the kind of curiosity and logical thought that make for an intelligent person.
I mean besides the obvious spelling mistakes which I'm sure the author added for affect, this is nothing but a rant.
Ya had me then ya lost me rant-man. Next time - just take one dip - and end it.
When the terms of the contract MS was pushing on public schools was brought to everyones attention, there was a pretty big uproar. Remember - MS forced the schools to pay them for licenses for ALL PC's in the district whether they actually ran Windows or not. The effect of this practice is to hinder the ability to buy Mac's for - say the graphic arts department or even use donated PC's to run Linux or anything else. Makes you wonder just what kind of "deal" these schools are getting and if they are possibly anti-competitive.
It was their previous action that caused Microsoft to stop shipping the Java VM.
Sorry, that's not what the judge found as fact. The Judge ruled that Microsoft intentionally broke the platform-independence of Java in violation of their agreement and FORCED Sun into having to restrict Microsoft from receiving future versions in order to protect it's cross-platform nature. Further, the judge ruled that he would not allow Microsoft to then turn around and say (as you have in your post) that Sun caused Microsoft to not be able to provide up-to-date JRE.
Microsoft have a very strong case that Sun suffers no harm if the status quo continues and that they would suffer substantial harm. Java is active code and active code has historically been subject to lots of security risks - including Java.
Wrong again. The judge ruled that Microsoft uses other third party software vendors and the support and security risks with Java is similar to the support and security risks that Microsoft takes on with these other vendors.
It may be the US way for failing companies to go to the government or courts to try to win there what they failled to win in the market but it didn;t
This statement is just plain bizzare. Microsoft is seems to be terrified of stacking their products up against the competition and resorts to criminal behavior rather than the free market to succeed in business. This appears to be, as you put it, the "US way" (Enron, Worldcom, etc.)
Sun is suing MS in a civil case, saying that Microsoft used their monopoly(1) on desktop operating systems to illegally compete with Sun's Java
The way I read it is that the judge's findings of fact says that Microsoft's intention from the very beginning was to take control of Java by subverting one of it's key "inventions" - that of being cross-platform (write once run anywhere.) They intended to create a "polluted" version, and deceive developers about it's Microsoft-only nature.
Because it has been shown to be a fact that Microsoft is a monopolist these actions are illegal.
Next...because of Microsoft's actions WRT "polluted Java", Sun was placed in a position where it HAD to restrict Java upgrades to Microsoft because Microsoft was distributing JRE that was not cross-platform - as required by their agreement. The judge ruled that Sun can not be punished for Microsoft putting them in that position.
Lastly, the judge ruled that in the seven years it took to come to this point today, Microsoft has destabilized Java on the PC, while at the same time, creating a competing product -.NET. Now it wants to use it's monopoly position to make.NET "ubiquitous."
The "must-carry" ruling indicates that the court recognizes the criminal intent of this strategy and intends to remedy the situation by forcing Microsoft to make the Java platform as ubiquitous as.NET and then to allow the two platforms to compete on merit.....which for some reason, Bill Gates seems to be terrified of doing (see "Breaking Windows" by David Bank.)
Gnome and KDE are like windows. And what's the point of doing the R&D, and systems development for a new user interface with the existing Microsoft preditory monopoly?
I've posted about this before. I work in the Phama area. We collect data in clinical trials for new drugs. Some of the data must be kept for decades (till the patients die.) It must able to be processed 30 or so years from now. Same with our documents. Storing this data using published open file formats is a requirement. Microsoft characterises these situations as discriminatory. It's not. It's a system requirement. If they want to get into this kind of business, they have to build software that meets the requirements.
Simply because the Anti-Trust trial focused on the OS rather than Office software, does not mean that the government has no reason to impose restrictions to keep MS from shifting their monopoly power....
I thought Microsoft said the Office WAS part of the operating system...
No, I am not interested in debate. Neocon's are shills of the ultra-wealthy. I assume you know what a shill is. We have heard your point (which is boilerplate neocon propaganda) - education sucks because teachers are unionized and schools are public institutions. This is what your neocon masters at the washington times, reason mag. and the heritage foundation want the vast middle class to believe.
In reality, all of this anti-teacher/anti-public ed comes about because union teachers are a block of Democratic voters. I know it, YOU know it...I just want to make sure the readers know it.
Neocons like you are not getting a free pass anymore. And I'm glad this bothers you...means I'm doing my job.
P.S. I used to read Reason back when I was an undergrad, was a member of the North Dakota Libertarian paty, and believed everything Ayn Rand said.
Yup...it's all personal now. And the purpose of my post was not debate you but to warn others that the Washington Times is a neocon propaganda rag and anyone that attempts to use it as a source of news or facts is either ignorant/stupid or a neocon... like you.
This guy quotes Reason mag. not an independent source. Why mod this guy up? And 1/2 of $9,267.00 is $4,633.50. So you are going to find a "top flight" private school for that much? Is that a religious school?
Also, public schools have to educate everybody. They do not get to pick and choose who they want to educate. Private schools with well-to-do motivated students have a hell of an easier time than a public school located in a poor inner-city.
Stop modding this kind of Republican Propaganda up...
...easy!!! Because the teachers and their unions are mostly Democrats. From a neocon perspective (which is the only way Ben Stein can think) that is the REAL problem with public ed today.
And don't tell me that he cares for inner-city folk and schools. That is nothing but a neocon ploy to make it seem like they care about anybody else but themselves. If the teachers were a Republican voting block - there would be no "problems" in our public schools - from a neocon perspective.
The point is that Stein worked for a failed criminal Presidency. He was born rich and now acts like he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps.
And it seems to me that there is no "free-market" response to inflation except "let it ride." That means inflation will be under control IN THE LONG RUN...So our government's job is to fix things without having to wait that long since we could loose critical markets and perhaps the friggin country "in the long run."
Slashdot Mirror
but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind
This kind of knowlege is called Enlightenment
...but it is well documented that the requirements and design effort swamp the coding effort in the process of delivering software. I've worked at two companies so far in my carreer where the product was commercial software. Unless you are building an application that programmers will use, one really needs to enlist domain experts to determine what features will be effective. As an example, I developed a number of commercial applications that are used by electron microscopists in performing quality control on prototype integrated circuits. It succeeded not because my manager was a software developer with a Princeton education but because our resident microscopists told me exactly what the tool needed to do based on years of experience in the field.
Now, this tool can be purchased and it's features can be copied...but certainly I never could have built this thing myself from scratch as my background is in computer science and software engineering.
IMO there is absolutely nothing wrong with copying features. In fact, if I were looking for an OSS tool like the one I described above - I think the most important thing I could say about it is that it is just like "X", except it's free (as in beer/speech/or whatever.)
Lastly, it seems to me that since requirements and design consume so much effort/time/expense that one reasonable lifecycle for an application is..
1. Domain experts recognise the opportunity to automate some aspect of their work based upon years of experience in the field
2. They invest the effort/time/expense in developing the requirements/features and create a proprietary application which the sell for $$$ for as long as they can
3. Eventually, other commercial proprietary apps are available with added improvements to compete...so less $$$ available
4. Over time, the set of requirements for this type of tool become known by all.
5. Once the requirements/feature are common knowlege, OSS replicates the tool and the world is a better place.
Clearly, OSS has produced original work that never went through a commercial cycle. But there is no shame in copying features. As Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."
If somebody wants to share IP with the world then they are unAmerican, communitsts, and dirty hippies. But if M$ wants to steal IP from Sendo then that's just capitalism.
The "Silver Bullet" Kitty is referring to here is the seminal work No Silver Bullet - Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering written by Frederick P. Brooks. If you are a "young" developer then reading and understanding this paper will start you on the road to being an "old" developer.
.NET will probably not reduce your "coding" time anywhere near 50%.
One of the main points is that "coding" the application is actually a small percentage of the overall time and cost of delivering non-trivial applications. Because of this, improvements in the software development process that are directed towards the "coding" aspect will necessarily be somewhat inconsequential - much to the chagrin of tool vendors and the IS managers that willingly believe their vendorspeak.
The much much larger part of your budget and flow-time will be consumed by requirements analysis and system design (leaving out maintenance for now.) So even if some new tool reduces your "coding" time by 50% (fat chance), 50% of - say - 20% is still not THAT big of a deal. And lets face it... switching from ASP/VB6 to
To have a dramatic improvement, you need to go after the "big rocks" first....requirements analysis and system architecture/design.
BTW, Extreme Programming is not about skipping requirements definition. It's about doing meaningful and efficient requirements definition which they believe can best be accomplished by delivering production quality iterations on development projects using evolutionary rapid prototyping (see Structured Rapid Prototyping by John L. Connell and Linda Brice Shafer.)
I find it interesting that with all the work that has been published on XP, that they only NOW are addressing the issues of incorporating database issues into the methodology. And make no mistake about it, if they can not incorporate databases in the way that the article describes - well that pretty much hurts it as a viable methodology for most data intensive business applications. Now, assuming that the inventors of XP intended their methodology to include this most important class of application, it seems almost foolhardy to have gone this far without addressing this database issue much sooner. Hey - but that's what they get for not doing their requirements first!
Problem is, no CS graduates do know this.
Absolute hogwash. I've been in this business for 20 years and interviewed developers for probably 100 openings. When I see no formal computer science education I put that resume on the bottom of the pile. Not all entry-level CS majors are ready to hit the ground running but at least you know that they have been exposed to a broad range of programming and software engineering topics. And in my experience, it's the physics and EE folks that I have had the most problems with.
I believe the biggest problem in our industry today is bad IS management. In my experience, IS managers without formal CS education are the reason that IS fails to meet business expectations. And I sense a lot of 'tude from the poster...probably does not have a CS degree and wants to get back at those who do.
Computers are changing EVERYTHING. Just because we do not know how to use them does not mean that they are not effective.
Yes compuers most certainly do change everything. You can find out just about anything you want from the internet at little or no cost. Learning how to find information on the web is a useful thing to teach.
But the next comment is plain unsubstantiated uninformed hyperbole. You say...
Our modern education system sucks. Absolutly, positivly sucks. All it does is turn a majority of students completly off of knowledge. It does not encourage the kind of curiosity and logical thought that make for an intelligent person.
I mean besides the obvious spelling mistakes which I'm sure the author added for affect, this is nothing but a rant.
Ya had me then ya lost me rant-man. Next time - just take one dip - and end it.
...network, update skills and build a company from the ground up. ...right?
When the terms of the contract MS was pushing on public schools was brought to everyones attention, there was a pretty big uproar. Remember - MS forced the schools to pay them for licenses for ALL PC's in the district whether they actually ran Windows or not. The effect of this practice is to hinder the ability to buy Mac's for - say the graphic arts department or even use donated PC's to run Linux or anything else. Makes you wonder just what kind of "deal" these schools are getting and if they are possibly anti-competitive.
It was their previous action that caused Microsoft to stop shipping the Java VM.
Sorry, that's not what the judge found as fact. The Judge ruled that Microsoft intentionally broke the platform-independence of Java in violation of their agreement and FORCED Sun into having to restrict Microsoft from receiving future versions in order to protect it's cross-platform nature. Further, the judge ruled that he would not allow Microsoft to then turn around and say (as you have in your post) that Sun caused Microsoft to not be able to provide up-to-date JRE.
Microsoft have a very strong case that Sun suffers no harm if the status quo continues and that they would suffer substantial harm. Java is active code and active code has historically been subject to lots of security risks - including Java.
Wrong again. The judge ruled that Microsoft uses other third party software vendors and the support and security risks with Java is similar to the support and security risks that Microsoft takes on with these other vendors.
It may be the US way for failing companies to go to the government or courts to try to win there what they failled to win in the market but it didn;t
This statement is just plain bizzare. Microsoft is seems to be terrified of stacking their products up against the competition and resorts to criminal behavior rather than the free market to succeed in business. This appears to be, as you put it, the "US way" (Enron, Worldcom, etc.)
Sun is suing MS in a civil case, saying that Microsoft used their monopoly(1) on desktop operating systems to illegally compete with Sun's Java
.NET. Now it wants to use it's monopoly position to make .NET "ubiquitous."
.NET and then to allow the two platforms to compete on merit.....which for some reason, Bill Gates seems to be terrified of doing (see "Breaking Windows" by David Bank.)
The way I read it is that the judge's findings of fact says that Microsoft's intention from the very beginning was to take control of Java by subverting one of it's key "inventions" - that of being cross-platform (write once run anywhere.) They intended to create a "polluted" version, and deceive developers about it's Microsoft-only nature.
Because it has been shown to be a fact that Microsoft is a monopolist these actions are illegal.
Next...because of Microsoft's actions WRT "polluted Java", Sun was placed in a position where it HAD to restrict Java upgrades to Microsoft because Microsoft was distributing JRE that was not cross-platform - as required by their agreement. The judge ruled that Sun can not be punished for Microsoft putting them in that position.
Lastly, the judge ruled that in the seven years it took to come to this point today, Microsoft has destabilized Java on the PC, while at the same time, creating a competing product -
The "must-carry" ruling indicates that the court recognizes the criminal intent of this strategy and intends to remedy the situation by forcing Microsoft to make the Java platform as ubiquitous as
The punishment fits the crime.
Seems to me that MS should have to compensate Sun in this manner for their preditory practices.
Gnome and KDE are like windows. And what's the point of doing the R&D, and systems development for a new user interface with the existing Microsoft preditory monopoly?
8) Release new OS with filesystem that looks like a database.
So by 2010 we will have 30 million VB "developers" who do not know what a file is.
I've posted about this before. I work in the Phama area. We collect data in clinical trials for new drugs. Some of the data must be kept for decades (till the patients die.) It must able to be processed 30 or so years from now. Same with our documents. Storing this data using published open file formats is a requirement. Microsoft characterises these situations as discriminatory. It's not. It's a system requirement. If they want to get into this kind of business, they have to build software that meets the requirements.
* Not change them with every update.
...don't you mean improve them with every update?
Simply because the Anti-Trust trial focused on the OS rather than Office software, does not mean that the government has no reason to impose restrictions to keep MS from shifting their monopoly power. ...
I thought Microsoft said the Office WAS part of the operating system...
Pr0n-boy is on to us. Nothing left to do but zip-up and go find girlfriends.
No, I am not interested in debate. Neocon's are shills of the ultra-wealthy. I assume you know what a shill is. We have heard your point (which is boilerplate neocon propaganda) - education sucks because teachers are unionized and schools are public institutions. This is what your neocon masters at the washington times, reason mag. and the heritage foundation want the vast middle class to believe.
In reality, all of this anti-teacher/anti-public ed comes about because union teachers are a block of Democratic voters. I know it, YOU know it...I just want to make sure the readers know it.
Neocons like you are not getting a free pass anymore. And I'm glad this bothers you...means I'm doing my job.
P.S. I used to read Reason back when I was an undergrad, was a member of the North Dakota Libertarian paty, and believed everything Ayn Rand said.
Yup...it's all personal now. And the purpose of my post was not debate you but to warn others that the Washington Times is a neocon propaganda rag and anyone that attempts to use it as a source of news or facts is either ignorant/stupid or a neocon ... like you.
This guy is a neocon. He hates teachers because they are Democrats.
This guy quotes Reason mag. not an independent source. Why mod this guy up? And 1/2 of $9,267.00 is $4,633.50. So you are going to find a "top flight" private school for that much? Is that a religious school?
Also, public schools have to educate everybody. They do not get to pick and choose who they want to educate. Private schools with well-to-do motivated students have a hell of an easier time than a public school located in a poor inner-city.
Stop modding this kind of Republican Propaganda up...
...easy!!! Because the teachers and their unions are mostly Democrats. From a neocon perspective (which is the only way Ben Stein can think) that is the REAL problem with public ed today.
And don't tell me that he cares for inner-city folk and schools. That is nothing but a neocon ploy to make it seem like they care about anybody else but themselves. If the teachers were a Republican voting block - there would be no "problems" in our public schools - from a neocon perspective.
...and you miss the point.
The point is that Stein worked for a failed criminal Presidency. He was born rich and now acts like he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps.
And it seems to me that there is no "free-market" response to inflation except "let it ride." That means inflation will be under control IN THE LONG RUN...So our government's job is to fix things without having to wait that long since we could loose critical markets and perhaps the friggin country "in the long run."
...we're gonna have a world full of MCSE sysadmins that don't know what a file is.....