[SystemSafety] Modelling and coding guidelines: "Unambiguous Graphical Representation"

[Steve Tockey]

Derek,
An interesting position, but please consider this alternative view:

I'm using a popular word processor for writing my new book. I've seen
reports from credible people who have evaluated that code base, they all
report, "it sucks". I know people who work for that company, they freely
admit "our code sucks". No question, it's bad code.

As a user, I have already logged 93 unique defects against the product.
The most serious defect is that it can go into an infinite loop after a
Paste. When it does, I have to go to the operating system control panel to
kill the process as it is consuming 100% of one CPU and not listening to
any user input. My habit now is to Save-Cut-Paste instead of the normal
Cut-Paste to minimize lost work (it's supposed "saved" version is up to 20
minutes of editing behind). Web searching reveals that this
infinite-loop-on-Paste defect has been in the product since 2011 and has
still not been fixed. I can't think of any other way to put it, it's bad
code.

But here's the deal, I can't invest anything in that code. It's not my
code to invest in. I'm just the poor hapless user who has to deal with
their crap because that's what the publisher wants.

Your position is fine from a supplier-side perspective, but what about the
consumer-side? Shouldn't we have a say? At best, all I can do economically
is be true to my vow of never spending another penny with that vendor.
They've gotten enough of my money over the years for their schlock
software. No more.

It's not my option to invest in their code. All I can do is make it
obvious that I refuse to spend any more with those schmucks.


Regards,

-- steve




-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
on behalf of Derek M Jones <derek at knosof.co.uk>
Organization: Knowledge Software, Ltd
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 8:13 AM
To: "systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de"
<systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Modelling and coding guidelines: "Unambiguous
Graphical Representation"

Steve,

> My point is that it's not a simple thing to precisely define "bad code",
> neither is it a simple thing to detect it or repair it.

Bad code can be precisely defined by the amount of resources you
are willing to invest in finding and fixing any problems it might
contain.

If the code might contain problems that you are not willing to invest
in doing anything about, then it is obviously good enough.

How you choose to invest the resources you have in finding/fixing
problems is a technical issue.  There is not a lot of hard data
available to help make the optimal use of resources, so people
tend to follow the herd and sprinkle in a few of their own preferences.

-- 
Derek M. Jones           Software analysis
tel: +44 (0)1252 520667  blog:shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com
_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE