January 24, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Sorry if I ruffled a few feathers, but I always question peoples beliefs on why they think software is any more special than any other tool they use. That being said, I also understand how they came to that belief. There is nothing like software. You can’t touch, hold, manipulate without more software or via the developer and when it works, it works very well, so it’s mystical in nature.
But (there is always a but) as Old Hand says software of any reasonable complexity is very hard to get working, let alone working to what everyone thinks is right. Don’t think so? Have a try with something simple like a recommendation engine. This is why I think Steve’s line of “Developing software is easy…” irks me, even though he correctly tries to explain it away. “Hello World” is easy; everything after isn’t easy when you have human users.
As Lyn says “trap for mistakes”, well that’s easier said than done. Look at the legal systems in their complexity and loop-hole flaws by trying to trap for mistakes.
As Gary unintentionally agrees, cars and microwaves fail (more often because of the operator) but we don’t say “the manufacture should have tested for my problem case better!”
So building better software is extremely hard and nigh to impossible. Just saying more testing won't make that happen. The varied skill of the users, the varied conditions it's used in, the pressure of getting it to market, the change requirements expected; it's a wonder it even works at all!
The bottom line is if you look at why you are frustrated by feeling powerless with buggy software is because of the mystical nature in that with other tools you can somewhat fix the problem yourself. Car gets a flat; you change the tire; microware stops working you buy another one, light bulb; replace, but bug in software… can’t easily replace, fix, *arrhggg* call the mighty developers and hope for the best.
January 25, 2013 at 4:10 am
Scott Anderson-466019 (1/24/2013)
Sorry if I ruffled a few feathers, but I always question peoples beliefs on why they think software is any more special than any other tool they use. That being said, I also understand how they came to that belief. There is nothing like software. You can’t touch, hold, manipulate without more software or via the developer and when it works, it works very well, so it’s mystical in nature.But (there is always a but) as Old Hand says software of any reasonable complexity is very hard to get working, let alone working to what everyone thinks is right. Don’t think so? Have a try with something simple like a recommendation engine. This is why I think Steve’s line of “Developing software is easy…” irks me, even though he correctly tries to explain it away. “Hello World” is easy; everything after isn’t easy when you have human users.
As Lyn says “trap for mistakes”, well that’s easier said than done. Look at the legal systems in their complexity and loop-hole flaws by trying to trap for mistakes.
As Gary unintentionally agrees, cars and microwaves fail (more often because of the operator) but we don’t say “the manufacture should have tested for my problem case better!”
So building better software is extremely hard and nigh to impossible. Just saying more testing won't make that happen. The varied skill of the users, the varied conditions it's used in, the pressure of getting it to market, the change requirements expected; it's a wonder it even works at all!
The bottom line is if you look at why you are frustrated by feeling powerless with buggy software is because of the mystical nature in that with other tools you can somewhat fix the problem yourself. Car gets a flat; you change the tire; microware stops working you buy another one, light bulb; replace, but bug in software… can’t easily replace, fix, *arrhggg* call the mighty developers and hope for the best.
Software is not "any more special" but it is a repeatable, testable artefact that allows for refinement. The case in point in this editorial is that refinement, through software engineering techniques say, should occur BEFORE release. Ironically, it is the human decision not to apply the efforts in what I believe is the appropriate time that causes the problem. It is the repeatability that I believe invalidates your nullification of your dismissal of Lynn's viewpoint; legal systems are not digital and are totally based on human judgement thus making it not repeatable.
I think you are being a little disingenuous with some of your comments, particularly by quoting half of Steve's sentence which completely alters the intent of the message (even with your qualification). The whole point is that IT IS EASY to develop software. Drag and drop your UI then write a bunch of lines which now can be butchered versions of what has been copied from the Internet. Surely you have been collared by hobbyist coders. The message was that it isn't easy to do a good job.
...and no I don't agree. Intentionally. I do tell manufacturers that their products should work as advertised. This isn't an edge case as far as the user is concerned. The days referred to in the article are the same as any other day. It was an edge case of the component used. Something a professional should know to cater for.
Also your bottom line is not comparing like for like. A flat tyre is expected with a solution designed in. It would be fairer to compare a new virus discovered and an antivirus software company supplying an updated virus definitions file.
NOTE TO HOBBYIST CODERS: I have nothing against you as it is a hobby. I just think that there is a separate level of requirement for professionals. Please see my (lack of) sporting abilities that I regularly demonstrate for evidence that I believe that anyone can do these things but you have to be really good to be professional. I also apply plasters to my kids but I will not perform surgery on them 😉
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
January 25, 2013 at 4:11 am
Also, this is a discussion. Feathers are there to be ruffled in open debate 😉
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
January 25, 2013 at 10:28 am
Scott Anderson-466019 (1/24/2013)
Sorry if I ruffled a few feathers, but I always question peoples beliefs on why they think software is any more special than any other tool they use. That being said, I also understand how they came to that belief. There is nothing like software. You can’t touch, hold, manipulate without more software or via the developer and when it works, it works very well, so it’s mystical in nature.
No feathers ruffled. I don't agree, but you made me think. I hadn't considered the relative damage people do themselves v software. It's an interesting way of looking at things. Thanks for that.
It's not the software is more special, it's just that it's our business. We work with software (build/manage) and it is becoming more profilic. If we were building houses, we'd be debating nail guns and the good/bad they do, or why scissor trusses are better/worse than traditional roofing with attic space.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
January 25, 2013 at 7:59 pm
Everyone having thick skin makes getting to the interesting points quicker. Good.
Ok Gary, I didn’t want to tangent off to your common view as that rabbit hole goes real deep, but I think the human factor point has been made.
Software is repeatable: Yes, given a functional programming language, with a scope that is immutable and cannot differ, hardware that cannot change, the absolutely yes; otherwise no chance in bucklies it’s repeatable. Read on...
Software is testable: Really? Fact: Only a surprisingly small part of software is testable. Have you seen Windows, Office, SQL Server, Linux, etc? Are you certain that with the amazing resources they have, that they don’t test their software? Automated, integrated, user acceptance and a myriad of other techniques, and yet somehow they release a surprising number of patches and fixes so often. Read on...
Why do you think software developers talk in terms of “Should”, “Depends”, “May”, “Probably”, “Hope”? Because there are no guarantees. To justify the pay they need titles like Software Engineer, not Software Artist, which is really what they are doing. The only “engineering” is when they use years proven 3rd party libraries. Eg. Do you know how often code fails when getting data from a database? Rarely ever, unless some user does something stupid. It’s everything else that happens around it which is “done for the very first time” to communicate with the user that has the problems. Every application is different and there are very few repeatable parts, otherwise you would only ever have a couple of programs. This is why there are so few database access libraries, to have some stability somewhere.
Should occur before release: Sorry but huh? Of course it does! Every heard the saying “Works on my machine” or “I can’t reproduce your problem”? Every computer has a different hardware setup, has different combination of applications and drivers installed. There is no set know environment. It’s all different! How can you find problems in software that your machine doesn’t have?
It would be great it software was as easy as drag/drop and write a bunch of lines. Imaging how fast applications and systems could be created!?! But funny enough, software development isn’t fast and it takes time, so how could that be? Arhh those hobbyist, they are the ones that make new versions of Windows, Office and SQL Server take years to come around. Let’s get them!
No, the realities are that like I said, it’s nigh to impossible to better engineer software with the current tools and more importantly; it is in no way easy to develop software with any complexity. Ie. Interacting with the user.
BUT! We can do better in other ways…
So Gary, please don’t think I’m picking on you, it’s just you’ve articulated a common mis-conception and fallacy; so you’ve been made an example of. 😉
January 25, 2013 at 8:34 pm
Arhh Steve not you too; thinking software *creation* is analogous to architectural building. That was only the selling point to get people to buy these systems in the first place many years ago. Nothing could be further from the truth, but you don’t dare tell the financial stake holders that. Especially such facts as 70% of software projects fail. How many building projects does that happen to? Got to associate with the right mobs to get the risk taken and get paid.
Writing software is *nothing* like building houses. Funny enough the closest profession is… (believe it or not, it will take a bit but it will click)… Doctors. Huh? Really? No way! Now you’re just making things up!?!
Doctors have to deal with the following:
1)ever changing organisms (virus, bacteria, cell mutations, etc.)
2)can only ever try what they *think* has worked before
3)have to deal with the humans who cause the problems to themselves and others
4)no two patients are exactly alike even though they are all humans
5)and on and on that similarities go but who has a couple of hours to spare?
Now if you view software development from that point of view, then you have a more realistic understand of what can and cannot be done to build better software.
January 25, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Funny side point: I just tried to post this reply (just above as I'm editing the original out now), but the send timed out. I refresh the page and all my text is gone! Arhhh I'm just speaking to the wind! Should I tell someone that there is a bug? Who, where, why, how do they reproduce it? If I didn't take my own precaution by writing it first in another application, proof read and then copy and paste it in here again, I would have lost it all. No, there is no better thing the website developers could have done, I have to take responsibility and treat software as what it is; just a very fallible tool.
January 25, 2013 at 10:33 pm
And I have to disagree with you. Software can be engineered, just like any other project. Whether or not it actually is happens to be another people problem, not a software problem.
January 27, 2013 at 10:56 am
Good points, Scott, and I wasn't attempting to equate software to building, though they both do poor jobs, so maybe that isn't so bad. Most buildings aren't build completely square or plumb, or on time, or even without "bugs" that are found later.
But I agree with you, it's a tenuous analogy. The idea of medicine does make more sense, though in that case doctors make mistakes constantly, despite knowing better.
I think we can engineer things to a point, but much of what we build becomes beyond the ability of one person to understand and comprehend the problems. Testing is poorly done, despite the fact that it's gotten much better, and much more comprehensive, it doesn't even come close to the real world.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply