[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] more on the merge-fest
From: |
Samium Gromoff |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] more on the merge-fest |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:03:50 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.3 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
At Wed, 26 Nov 2003 02:16:57 +0000,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> [1 <multipart/signed (7bit)>]
> [1.1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:39:05PM -0800, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote:
> > > In the absence of this level of redundancy, writing the code and the
> > > test suite in either order will be "good enough for government work."
> >
> > Actually, no it isn't. Government work requires that specifications are
> > written up-front, in their entirety, for all projects defined to be
> > "mission critical."
>
> You have spent too much time looking at the plans and specifications
> for government work and not enough looking at what actually happens in
> the real world.
>
> Most of the time, the specification is pulled out of the air (to
> satisfy the requirements) and then ignored completely, and bears no
> resemblence to the result.
An excellent point which indicates that nice idea that planning
isn`t too useful in programming.
I tend to think that planning what the code will end up to be doing
is just a rave -- an unrealistic dream about how cool we humans are
at thinking.
Well, i`m assuming an enough long-term projects here, of course.
> --
> .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
> : :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
> `. `' |
> `- -><- |
regards, Samium Gromoff
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] more on the merge-fest,
Samium Gromoff <=