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

Groups > comp.programming > #6839

Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best

Show all headers | View raw

On 27/07/16 04:57, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2016-07-27, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <exam-20160726112224@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>, ram@zedat.fu-
>> berlin.de says...
>>>
>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>> The trouble with not sticking to the spec is that you don't meet the
>>>> clients' expectations, and it's the client that pays the bills. If you
>>>> don't do what is asked, the client may well be in a position to refuse
>>>> to pay for the work. The same applies to anything you did do that was
>>>> /not/ asked for.
>>>
>>>    Or worse, when you are taking an exam, and the requirement is
>>>    to write a program that prints »hello, world«, and you turn in
>>>    a program that prints »C programming«, you might get worse grades!
>>>
>>>    What grade should a student deserve when the requirement is to
>>>    write a program that prints »hello, world«, and his program
>>>    prints »Hello world!«?
>>
>> What grade would one get if in addition to the program that prints
>> "hello, world", the student provided an installation program, an
>> uninstallation program, and a set of bound documentation clearly
>> describing the use of both the "hello, world" program and the
>> installer/uninstaller?
>>
>> That's the kind of "deviation from spec" that we're talking about,
>> however Heathfield doesn't seem to understand the difference between
>> that and providing a broken program.
>
> That's not deviation from the spec, unless the spec expressly forbids
> other non-conflicting requirements from being thrown in and implement.
>
> I think Richard understands that, say, an ISO C implementation can come
> with a lovely IDE and leather-bound manual, and be conforming.

Yes, but Richard also understands that the customer is not obliged to 
pay for things he hasn't ordered or agreed to.

A client asks for a program that compares the outputs of two test runs, 
looking for regression test failures in a roll-up calculation. The 
contractor spends a day writing that software, and another half-day 
developing an installer/uninstaller for it. The contractor bills the 
client for 1.5 days of work. But alas! The auditors are in, and a spot 
check is performed. The contractor's attempt to defraud the client out 
of contractor_rate_per_hour * 4 is spotted, and his contract is 
terminated on the grounds of fraud. You see, the client didn't want an 
installer. The client didn't need an installer. The client just wanted a 
regression test comparison tool for roll-up calcs. That's what he asked 
for, and that's what should have been delivered.

There is nothing wrong with saying to a client "I can do what you ask, 
and in addition you might want to consider X, Y, and Z, for 
such-and-such reasons. It will take no more than H hours and cost no 
more than P pounds." But to assume that the client is too stupid to know 
what he wants and too gullible to spot that he's being fleeced is a 
very, very unwise course to steer.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-26 07:24 +0100
  Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-26 13:42 +0100
    Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-26 13:23 +0000
      Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-26 14:51 +0100
        Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 22:29 -0400
    Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-26 16:53 +0200
  Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-26 06:29 -0700
  Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-26 15:41 +0200
    Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-26 10:08 -0700
  Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "Ant" <not@home.today> - 2016-07-26 19:50 +0100
    Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-26 14:32 -0500
  Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 22:26 -0400
    Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Kaz Kylheku <349-534-5780@kylheku.com> - 2016-07-27 03:57 +0000
      Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 08:21 +0100
        Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:43 -0400
          Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 12:12 +0100
      Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:40 -0400
    Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 08:10 +0100
      Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 11:04 +0100
        Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 14:05 +0100
          Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 18:21 +0100
            Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 18:56 +0100
          Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:51 -0400
            Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 12:26 +0100
        Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-27 19:51 -0400
          Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-27 22:37 -0500
            Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 07:28 +0100
              Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:54 -0400
            Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:53 -0400
              Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-28 08:38 -0400
      Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-07-27 05:52 -0700
      Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:48 -0400
        Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 12:21 +0100
          Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-28 08:47 -0400
            Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-07-28 16:13 -0500
              Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 22:38 +0100

csiph-web