Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #26537 > unrolled thread

[OT] I got a JOB!!!

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded

Contents

  [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 13:49 -0500
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-16 19:04 +0000
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 12:14 -0700
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-16 14:41 -0500
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 14:01 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2017-05-16 14:42 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 17:09 -0500
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 16:42 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 09:00 +1000
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! eric.jacobsen@ieee.org - 2017-05-16 20:17 +0000
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-16 15:24 -0500
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 22:05 +0100
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 17:11 -0500
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 23:51 +0100
              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 18:32 -0500
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 09:41 +1000
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 09:35 +0100
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-17 19:03 +1000
                      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 10:31 +0100
                        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-17 23:07 +1000
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 09:41 +0100
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 10:10 +0100
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 10:34 +0100
                      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 15:59 +0100
                        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:04 +0100
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:02 +0100
              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 17:56 -0700
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 09:42 +0100
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-05-17 16:57 +0800
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 10:32 +0100
                      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-05-17 18:12 +0800
                        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-17 03:54 -0700
                          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-05-17 21:57 +0800
                            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-17 09:36 -0700
                          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2017-05-17 18:07 +0300
                            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-17 10:44 -0500
                            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-17 09:47 -0700
                              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-17 10:18 -0700
                              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2017-05-17 20:25 +0300
                                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-17 12:01 -0700
                      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-17 10:25 -0500
                        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:22 +0100
                          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-17 12:36 -0500
                            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:45 +0100
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-17 03:42 -0700
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-05-16 15:04 -0700
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 15:30 -0700
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-05-16 20:02 -0400
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 20:40 -0400
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Randy Yates <randyy@garnerundergroundinc.com> - 2017-05-17 09:12 -0400
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-17 10:02 -0500
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:11 +0100
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-17 12:21 -0500
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:36 +0100
              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-17 12:43 -0500
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:55 +0100
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:57 +0100
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-17 13:28 -0500
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 20:08 +0100
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-05-17 21:30 -0700
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-18 00:03 -0500
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 08:18 +0100
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-05-18 22:56 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Vassilis Spiliopoulos <vassilis@vask1lux.de> - 2017-05-19 14:31 +0300
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-19 10:39 -0500
              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Vassilis Spiliopoulos <vassilis@vask1lux.de> - 2017-05-19 23:02 +0300
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-19 13:12 -0700
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-05-19 15:00 -0700
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-19 16:05 -0700
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-05-21 01:46 -0700
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Vassilis Spiliopoulos <vassilis@vask1lux.de> - 2017-05-21 17:31 +0300
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-05-21 13:31 -0500
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-21 16:47 -0400

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#26537 — [OT] I got a JOB!!!

Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...

Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day 
job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any 
circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by 
hobby work or on the side.

In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current 
customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the 
educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.

Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD 
proselytizing.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#26538

Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:

> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
 
> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day 
> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any 
> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by 
> hobby work or on the side.
 
> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current 
> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the 
> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
 
> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD 
> proselytizing.
 

Seek and yee shall find. Basic law of the universe.

Good luck! But keep your options open.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26540

On 5/16/2017 11:49 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>
> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
> job.

Congratulations! (and good luck making the adjustment; the idea of having
to BE somewhere early in the morning is anathema to me!).

> Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any

The folks who make displays?  (or, a different "Planar")

> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
> hobby work or on the side.
>
> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>
> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
> proselytizing.

It will be interesting to hear your observations of how things
(i.e., design) differ when seeing the corporate world *fresh*.
(even if you don't publicly share them, I suspect you will
"notice" them, at some level)

I think most of us only see it *once*, "fresh" -- and, at that
time, have little other experience with which to contrast it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26541

On Tue, 16 May 2017 12:14:42 -0700, Don Y wrote:

> On 5/16/2017 11:49 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>
>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>> job.
> 
> Congratulations! (and good luck making the adjustment; the idea of
> having to BE somewhere early in the morning is anathema to me!).
> 
>> Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
> 
> The folks who make displays?  (or, a different "Planar")

Them guys.  Cool stuff.  Not a spinning motor or a low-level signal in 
sight, but lots of big pretty video displays.

>> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>> hobby work or on the side.
>>
>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>
>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>> proselytizing.
> 
> It will be interesting to hear your observations of how things (i.e.,
> design) differ when seeing the corporate world *fresh*.
> (even if you don't publicly share them, I suspect you will "notice"
> them, at some level)
> 
> I think most of us only see it *once*, "fresh" -- and, at that time,
> have little other experience with which to contrast it.

I suspect I'll be distracted by getting into the 9-5 routine for the long 
term -- but yes, it'll be interested.

Planar seems like a very happy company, and they've made a point to work 
with me on the whole customer transition thing (basically if I don't mess 
up with them, they're letting me support my existing projects).  So I'm 
looking forward to it.

I'm replacing a coworker of mine from over 15 years ago (I heard of the 
position opening up because I was invited to her retirement party), and 
one of my other coworkers works there, so in a sense it's family already.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26544

On 5/16/2017 12:41 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> It will be interesting to hear your observations of how things (i.e.,
>> design) differ when seeing the corporate world *fresh*.
>> (even if you don't publicly share them, I suspect you will "notice"
>> them, at some level)
>>
>> I think most of us only see it *once*, "fresh" -- and, at that time,
>> have little other experience with which to contrast it.
>
> I suspect I'll be distracted by getting into the 9-5 routine for the long
> term -- but yes, it'll be interested.

In hindsight, it was "educational" when I look back on transitioning
*out* of the 9-5 routine.  Just the idea that *I* could control my
schedule, what I worked on, the order that I tackled aspects of the
project, etc.  No need to justify an equipment purchase or worry
about exceeding that budget.  And, no time wasted in unproductive
meetings!

Of course, it was ALSO enlightening to discover there was noone
stocking the "stationery cabinet".  And, no one ordering the
parts for the prototypes -- or, chasing down shipping errors.
And, any mistakes were *all* accountable to *me*!  :-/

> Planar seems like a very happy company, and they've made a point to work
> with me on the whole customer transition thing (basically if I don't mess
> up with them, they're letting me support my existing projects).  So I'm
> looking forward to it.

Cool!  As a 9-5, I often had employment agreements that wanted to
poke fingers in what I did outside of work.  In one case, a prospective
employer grumbled that he "thought HE would satisfy my need to engage in
intellectual pursuits -- what MORE would you want?" (this being the
red flag that had me walk away from their offer)

This persisted into contract work -- where clients would want to "own"
everything I did for them ("Sure!  But, that means you can't benefit
from anything that I did for the PREVIOUS client; I'll have to bill you
to reinvent all that stuff...")

[If you're "just looking for a paycheck", you view things differently than
if you're looking for interesting challenges to consume the hours of your life]

> I'm replacing a coworker of mine from over 15 years ago (I heard of the
> position opening up because I was invited to her retirement party), and
> one of my other coworkers works there, so in a sense it's family already.

Even better -- as you'll have the inside dope on the place instead of
stumbling into it (at some personal expense).

Good luck!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26546

On 5/16/2017 2:01 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/16/2017 12:41 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> It will be interesting to hear your observations of how things (i.e.,
>>> design) differ when seeing the corporate world *fresh*.
>>> (even if you don't publicly share them, I suspect you will "notice"
>>> them, at some level)
>>>
>>> I think most of us only see it *once*, "fresh" -- and, at that time,
>>> have little other experience with which to contrast it.
>>
>> I suspect I'll be distracted by getting into the 9-5 routine for the long
>> term -- but yes, it'll be interested.
>
> In hindsight, it was "educational" when I look back on transitioning
> *out* of the 9-5 routine.  Just the idea that *I* could control my
> schedule, what I worked on, the order that I tackled aspects of the
> project, etc.  No need to justify an equipment purchase or worry
> about exceeding that budget.  And, no time wasted in unproductive
> meetings!
>
> Of course, it was ALSO enlightening to discover there was noone
> stocking the "stationery cabinet".  And, no one ordering the
> parts for the prototypes -- or, chasing down shipping errors.
> And, any mistakes were *all* accountable to *me*!  :-/
>
>> Planar seems like a very happy company, and they've made a point to work
>> with me on the whole customer transition thing (basically if I don't mess
>> up with them, they're letting me support my existing projects).  So I'm
>> looking forward to it.
>
> Cool!  As a 9-5, I often had employment agreements that wanted to
> poke fingers in what I did outside of work.  In one case, a prospective
> employer grumbled that he "thought HE would satisfy my need to engage in
> intellectual pursuits -- what MORE would you want?" (this being the
> red flag that had me walk away from their offer)
>
> This persisted into contract work -- where clients would want to "own"
> everything I did for them ("Sure!  But, that means you can't benefit
> from anything that I did for the PREVIOUS client; I'll have to bill you
> to reinvent all that stuff...")
>
> [If you're "just looking for a paycheck", you view things differently than
> if you're looking for interesting challenges to consume the hours of
> your life]
>
>> I'm replacing a coworker of mine from over 15 years ago (I heard of the
>> position opening up because I was invited to her retirement party), and
>> one of my other coworkers works there, so in a sense it's family already.
>
> Even better -- as you'll have the inside dope on the place instead of
> stumbling into it (at some personal expense).
>
> Good luck!
>
Unless the politics have changed dramatically in the last 20 years,
luck won't help you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26548

On Tue, 16 May 2017 14:01:48 -0700, Don Y wrote:

> On 5/16/2017 12:41 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:

>> snip <<

>> I'm replacing a coworker of mine from over 15 years ago (I heard of the
>> position opening up because I was invited to her retirement party), and
>> one of my other coworkers works there, so in a sense it's family
>> already.
> 
> Even better -- as you'll have the inside dope on the place instead of
> stumbling into it (at some personal expense).

I think I basically had the job when I mentioned at her retirement party 
that I was seriously looking.  Once they realized that I was _really_ 
seriously looking _at Planar_, the two former coworkers of mine basically 
dragged me and her manager together and said "hire this man!"

I figured that if it was a nasty place to work there would have been 
reservations of the "Tim, I'll go put in a word for you if you _really_ 
want".

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26555

On 5/16/2017 3:09 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 14:01:48 -0700, Don Y wrote:
>
>> On 5/16/2017 12:41 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
>
>>> snip <<
>
>>> I'm replacing a coworker of mine from over 15 years ago (I heard of the
>>> position opening up because I was invited to her retirement party), and
>>> one of my other coworkers works there, so in a sense it's family
>>> already.
>>
>> Even better -- as you'll have the inside dope on the place instead of
>> stumbling into it (at some personal expense).
>
> I think I basically had the job when I mentioned at her retirement party
> that I was seriously looking.  Once they realized that I was _really_
> seriously looking _at Planar_, the two former coworkers of mine basically
> dragged me and her manager together and said "hire this man!"
>
> I figured that if it was a nasty place to work there would have been
> reservations of the "Tim, I'll go put in a word for you if you _really_
> want".

Yup, I used a similar reasoning when deciding which RFQ's from my
colleagues' firms to ignore/pursue:
    "I think I'll take a pass on your RFQ, Bob"
    "Why?  It's *perfect* for you!"
    "Yeah, but I've been paying attention to all your casual
     complaints about how 'screwed up' the company is and figure
     it's not likely to treat a contractor any better than an
     employee!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26552

On 17/05/17 07:01, Don Y wrote:
>  As a 9-5, I often had employment agreements that wanted to
> poke fingers in what I did outside of work.  In one case, a prospective
> employer grumbled that he "thought HE would satisfy my need to engage in
> intellectual pursuits -- what MORE would you want?" (this being the
> red flag that had me walk away from their offer)
>
> This persisted into contract work -- where clients would want to "own"
> everything I did for them ("Sure!  But, that means you can't benefit
> from anything that I did for the PREVIOUS client; I'll have to bill you
> to reinvent all that stuff...")

Yes to all that. I stopped signing such agreements unmodified
some years ago. Now, where the proposed agreement says that
they own "any invention... etc" I just add "related to the
business of <employer>". Because I invent in many different
fields, I need that protection. I haven't had push-back.
They want me *because* I'm a polyglot.

It's possible that if, for example, I invent a new kind of
office chair while working for them, that they could claim
that their employees all use office chairs, so it's related
to their business... but I don't think that would last long
in court. They don't *sell* chairs.

There was also a remarkably sane ruling some years back in
the Australian High Court, where a software guy brought a
small library of his own, and enhanced it substantially
while working for the company, and after he left they
attacked him for continuing to use it. He claimed to have
re-written it, and because he had done it "to the best of
his ability and knowledge" both times, it was substantially
the same thing. The High Court acknowledged that they had
hired him because he had those abilities, and the company
could not, after he had left, restrain him from practicing
his acquired skill and knowledge for someone else, so their
case was thrown out.

Clifford Heath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26542

On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
<seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:

>Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>
>Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day 
>job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any 
>circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by 
>hobby work or on the side.

Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?

>In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current 
>customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the 
>educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>
>Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD 
>proselytizing.

Time Division Duplex?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26543

On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:

> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
> 
>>Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>
>>Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>>job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
>>circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>>hobby work or on the side.
> 
> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?

"Really Senior Embedded Guy".

>>In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>
>>Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>proselytizing.
> 
> Time Division Duplex?

Test Driven Design.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26545

On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>
>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>
>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>>> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
>>> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>>> hobby work or on the side.
>>
>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>
> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>
>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>
>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>> proselytizing.
>>
>> Time Division Duplex?
>
> Test Driven Design.

Be prepared to meet some people that believe
X works /because/ all the unit tests for X
are passed and the console shows a green light.

Usually they have never been introduced to the
concept that "you can't test quality into a product".
Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly
beneficial, but are not sufficient.

But I'm sure you know that!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26549

On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:

> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>
>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>>>> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
>>>> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>>>> hobby work or on the side.
>>>
>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>
>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>
>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>> proselytizing.
>>>
>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>
>> Test Driven Design.
> 
> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all the
> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.

Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes me 
think early about how something really should work, and there are finer-
grained tests to make sure that if I did something really dumbass it gets 
caught.

Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion 
that you can test in quality.

> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you can't
> test quality into a product".
> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are not
> sufficient.
> 
> But I'm sure you know that!

Yea verily!!

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26551

On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>
>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
>>>>> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
>>>>> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
>>>>> hobby work or on the side.
>>>>
>>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>>
>>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>>
>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>
>>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>>
>>> Test Driven Design.
>>
>> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all the
>> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.
>
> Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes me
> think early about how something really should work, and there are finer-
> grained tests to make sure that if I did something really dumbass it gets
> caught.
>
> Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion
> that you can test in quality.
>
>> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you can't
>> test quality into a product".
>> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are not
>> sufficient.
>>
>> But I'm sure you know that!
>
> Yea verily!!

The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
while they are very useful when making incremental
improvements during design, they can be a real
impediment in a few months/years time. The problem is
that over time people forget which tests demonstrate
required properties, and which are merely ensuring
behaviour of implementation artifacts. At that point
people are afraid to make changes that break tests,
even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the
codebase has become ossified.

Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on
getters/setters, and/or changing visibility solely
to enable unit tests.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26553

On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:51:26 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:

> On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>
>>>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>>>
>>>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>>>
>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>>>
>>>> Test Driven Design.
>>>
>>> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all the
>>> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.
>>
>> Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes
>> me think early about how something really should work, and there are
>> finer- grained tests to make sure that if I did something really
>> dumbass it gets caught.
>>
>> Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion
>> that you can test in quality.
>>
>>> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you can't
>>> test quality into a product".
>>> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are not
>>> sufficient.
>>>
>>> But I'm sure you know that!
>>
>> Yea verily!!
> 
> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
> while they are very useful when making incremental improvements during
> design, they can be a real impediment in a few months/years time. The
> problem is that over time people forget which tests demonstrate required
> properties, and which are merely ensuring behaviour of implementation
> artifacts. At that point people are afraid to make changes that break
> tests, even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the codebase has
> become ossified.
> 
> Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on getters/setters,
> and/or changing visibility solely to enable unit tests.

That's an interesting point.  I haven't been using TDD long enough for 
that to be an issue.  Good to know!

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26554

On 17/05/17 09:32, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:51:26 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>> On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>>>>
>>>>> Test Driven Design.
>>>>
>>>> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all the
>>>> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.
>>>
>>> Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes
>>> me think early about how something really should work, and there are
>>> finer- grained tests to make sure that if I did something really
>>> dumbass it gets caught.
>>>
>>> Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion
>>> that you can test in quality.
>>>
>>>> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you can't
>>>> test quality into a product".
>>>> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are not
>>>> sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> But I'm sure you know that!
>>>
>>> Yea verily!!
>>
>> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
>> while they are very useful when making incremental improvements during
>> design, they can be a real impediment in a few months/years time. The
>> problem is that over time people forget which tests demonstrate required
>> properties, and which are merely ensuring behaviour of implementation
>> artifacts. At that point people are afraid to make changes that break
>> tests, even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the codebase has
>> become ossified.
>>
>> Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on getters/setters,
>> and/or changing visibility solely to enable unit tests.
>
> That's an interesting point.  I haven't been using TDD long enough for
> that to be an issue.  Good to know!

TDD works where it gives you *another way* to state your expectations.
Testing getter/setters never says more about the getter/setter than
is said by their declaration, so the tests have zero value.

The important thing is to say "how else can I state this requirement?".
If you're using truly succinct code, such as strongly-typed Haskell,
there often is simply *no other way* to describe the expected behavior.
That's why FP aficionados scoff at TDD zealots. Programming with strong
types is always better than using TDD.

Clifford Heath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26561

On 17/05/17 00:41, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 17/05/17 09:32, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:51:26 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Test Driven Design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all the
>>>>> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes
>>>> me think early about how something really should work, and there are
>>>> finer- grained tests to make sure that if I did something really
>>>> dumbass it gets caught.
>>>>
>>>> Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion
>>>> that you can test in quality.
>>>>
>>>>> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you can't
>>>>> test quality into a product".
>>>>> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are not
>>>>> sufficient.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I'm sure you know that!
>>>>
>>>> Yea verily!!
>>>
>>> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
>>> while they are very useful when making incremental improvements during
>>> design, they can be a real impediment in a few months/years time. The
>>> problem is that over time people forget which tests demonstrate required
>>> properties, and which are merely ensuring behaviour of implementation
>>> artifacts. At that point people are afraid to make changes that break
>>> tests, even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the codebase has
>>> become ossified.
>>>
>>> Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on getters/setters,
>>> and/or changing visibility solely to enable unit tests.
>>
>> That's an interesting point.  I haven't been using TDD long enough for
>> that to be an issue.  Good to know!
>
> TDD works where it gives you *another way* to state your expectations.
> Testing getter/setters never says more about the getter/setter than
> is said by their declaration, so the tests have zero value.

Er, that's not TDD, that is Unit Tests. To be overly
simplistic, TDD is a strategy for generating Unit Tests.


> The important thing is to say "how else can I state this requirement?".
> If you're using truly succinct code, such as strongly-typed Haskell,
> there often is simply *no other way* to describe the expected behavior.
> That's why FP aficionados scoff at TDD zealots. Programming with strong
> types is always better than using TDD.

Strong typing is very beneficial, but is completely
insufficient. As one of an infinite number of trivial
examples, consider testing for X>Y when you should
be testing for Y>X.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26565

On 17/05/17 18:35, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 17/05/17 00:41, Clifford Heath wrote:
>> On 17/05/17 09:32, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:51:26 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>>>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Test Driven Design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes
>>>>> me think early about how something really should work, and there are
>>>>> finer- grained tests to make sure that if I did something really
>>>>> dumbass it gets caught.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion
>>>>> that you can test in quality.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> test quality into a product".
>>>>>> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> sufficient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I'm sure you know that!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yea verily!!
>>>>
>>>> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
>>>> while they are very useful when making incremental improvements during
>>>> design, they can be a real impediment in a few months/years time. The
>>>> problem is that over time people forget which tests demonstrate
>>>> required
>>>> properties, and which are merely ensuring behaviour of implementation
>>>> artifacts. At that point people are afraid to make changes that break
>>>> tests, even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the codebase
>>>> has
>>>> become ossified.
>>>>
>>>> Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on getters/setters,
>>>> and/or changing visibility solely to enable unit tests.
>>>
>>> That's an interesting point.  I haven't been using TDD long enough for
>>> that to be an issue.  Good to know!
>>
>> TDD works where it gives you *another way* to state your expectations.
>> Testing getter/setters never says more about the getter/setter than
>> is said by their declaration, so the tests have zero value.
>
> Er, that's not TDD, that is Unit Tests. To be overly
> simplistic, TDD is a strategy for generating Unit Tests.

Good code, in the best languages, can be read like a spec.
When that happens, your code and your test is the same thing,
expressed in the same way. Nothing is achieved by writing it
twice.

>> The important thing is to say "how else can I state this requirement?".
>> If you're using truly succinct code, such as strongly-typed Haskell,
>> there often is simply *no other way* to describe the expected behavior.
>> That's why FP aficionados scoff at TDD zealots. Programming with strong
>> types is always better than using TDD.
>
> Strong typing is very beneficial, but is completely
> insufficient. As one of an infinite number of trivial
> examples, consider testing for X>Y when you should
> be testing for Y>X.

If you got the code wrong, you'll get the test wrong too.
That what I mean by "another way to describe" expected behaviour.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26567

On 17/05/17 10:03, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 17/05/17 18:35, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 17/05/17 00:41, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>> On 17/05/17 09:32, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:51:26 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>>>>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Test Driven Design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes
>>>>>> me think early about how something really should work, and there are
>>>>>> finer- grained tests to make sure that if I did something really
>>>>>> dumbass it gets caught.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion
>>>>>> that you can test in quality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you
>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>> test quality into a product".
>>>>>>> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> sufficient.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I'm sure you know that!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yea verily!!
>>>>>
>>>>> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
>>>>> while they are very useful when making incremental improvements during
>>>>> design, they can be a real impediment in a few months/years time. The
>>>>> problem is that over time people forget which tests demonstrate
>>>>> required
>>>>> properties, and which are merely ensuring behaviour of implementation
>>>>> artifacts. At that point people are afraid to make changes that break
>>>>> tests, even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the codebase
>>>>> has
>>>>> become ossified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on getters/setters,
>>>>> and/or changing visibility solely to enable unit tests.
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting point.  I haven't been using TDD long enough for
>>>> that to be an issue.  Good to know!
>>>
>>> TDD works where it gives you *another way* to state your expectations.
>>> Testing getter/setters never says more about the getter/setter than
>>> is said by their declaration, so the tests have zero value.
>>
>> Er, that's not TDD, that is Unit Tests. To be overly
>> simplistic, TDD is a strategy for generating Unit Tests.
>
> Good code, in the best languages, can be read like a spec.
> When that happens, your code and your test is the same thing,
> expressed in the same way. Nothing is achieved by writing it
> twice.

Sigh.

Consider a spec such as "95th percentile latency of
less than 10ms". Good luck expressing that in your
code; testing it is difficult enough.

More generally, consider that specifications normally
deal with what needs to be achieved, and shouldn't
specify how they are to be achieved. That is
particularly apparent in hardware/software/mechanical
systems, where the implementation of required behaviour
could be in discrete transistors, HDL, software,
or sheets of metal.

Having pointed that out, I know what you are trying
to say and it is worth achieving. But in the real
world it is never that simple.


>>> The important thing is to say "how else can I state this requirement?".
>>> If you're using truly succinct code, such as strongly-typed Haskell,
>>> there often is simply *no other way* to describe the expected behavior.
>>> That's why FP aficionados scoff at TDD zealots. Programming with strong
>>> types is always better than using TDD.
>>
>> Strong typing is very beneficial, but is completely
>> insufficient. As one of an infinite number of trivial
>> examples, consider testing for X>Y when you should
>> be testing for Y>X.
>
> If you got the code wrong, you'll get the test wrong too.
> That what I mean by "another way to describe" expected behaviour.

Not necessarily. I suggest you read comp.risks
for many many many examples where your presumptions
are too simplistic in the real world.

I get the feeling your experience in this area
is with academic problems - which are valuable
pedagogical examples, but no more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26574

On 17/05/17 19:31, Tom Gardner wrote:
> I get the feeling your experience in this area
> is with academic problems - which are valuable
> pedagogical examples, but no more.

We had this discussion before. I don't want to do it again.

I personally wrote most of a million of lines of code which is
performing daily core management functions on over ten million
enterprise computers, including almost all the computers used
in the armed forces of three OECD nations, as well as a number
of banks, oil companies, national postal services, etc.

I'm well aware of the requirements that cannot even be
expressed, let alone tested. I'm also well aware of the
general state of ignorance about what *can* be achieved.

Any more ignorant accusations?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded

csiph-web