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

Groups > comp.programming > #6845

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

Show all headers | View raw

On 27/07/16 18:21, BartC wrote:
> On 27/07/2016 14:05, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 27/07/16 11:04, BartC wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2016 08:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>>>> If the client wants an installer/uninstaller, he'll ask for it.
>>>> Since he
>>>> didn't ask for it, he sure as hell isn't liable to pay for it.
>>>
>>> Such things ought to be assumed to be part of any application anyway.
>>
>> I fundamentally disagree with this. It ought to be assumed to be part of
>> /some/ applications, but not of /any/ applications.
>
> <snip long example>
>
>> You hand it in to the client,
>
> How and in what form?

The client and the developer form a contract, in which they agree on a 
set of tasks that the developer will perform, and the developer performs 
those tasks in return for remuneration from the client. The precise 
nature of the hand-over process will form part of that contract.

> How to do they activate and configure it?  How do they use it? How
 > do they install another copy? How to troubleshoot if it
> doesn't work? What are the deviations from the spec?

All of these are very important questions indeed, and the answers to all 
of them should be established as part of the requirements phase of 
construction.

> This is what I'm talking about.
>
>> But then the client (who hasn't signed yet)
>> notices that you've written a completely pointless installer for
>> Windows, an OS on which the program will never be installed. He gives it
>> back to you, and adjusts the bill to $X + $Xt before signing it off.
>>
>> All that work on the installer, and for nothing. Pointless and stupid.
>
> Which is very unlikely to happen as a program that works in Linux is
> unlikely to work unchanged in Windows, even if supplied as source.

The claim I am disputing is the claim that one should, as a matter of 
course, write an installer/uninstaller. When you are asked, for example, 
to provide source code in ISO C, you can be reasonably sure that the 
client will be fairly unhappy if he discovers that you've written it in 
Windows C or Linux C or MacOS C. If he'd wanted you to target a specific 
platform, he'd have told you which platform.

> (Except perhaps for a basic console app that only does file i/o. But
> then gcc is exactly such an app which apparently took years to make it
> to Windows.)

What you call a "basic console app" could be anything from 'Hello, 
world' to a multi-million-line monster. The word "basic" is misplaced.

> Also because the developer wouldn't be that stupid.

Precisely! Exactly my point! Nobody in their right mind would develop a 
Windows installer with file association functionality for a program 
that's going to be tested on Unix and then flipped up to the mainframe. 
It's completely bloody daft. And when I dared to say that 
file-associating installers aren't always required, I was told I had 
obviously never done systems analysis!

You can't have it both ways. You can't reasonably say that it's always 
necessary to provide installers /and/ that it's sometimes stupid to 
provide them.

-- 
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