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

Groups > comp.programming > #6856

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

Show all headers | View raw

On 28/07/16 11:48, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <nn9mps$69j$1@dont-email.me>, rjh@cpax.org.uk says...
>>
>> On 27/07/16 03:26, J. Clarke 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?
>>
>> The grade should be D- (and for very good reason).
>
> Ok, now we understand you completely.  You punish initiative.

And you reward irrelevant distractions from the task at hand. OR we 
could discuss the matter sensibly and intelligently, like grown-ups. Why 
are your responses so aggressive? Isn't it possible to disagree without 
being rude?

>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Mr Clarke, you seem to think that you have sole charge of the client's
>> cheque book.
>
> No, I have control of my billing.

Fine. And, as a customer, I now know that you're likely to bill me for 
stuff I don't want or need, so I'm going to avoid using your services. 
Of course, that won't bother you, because you have plenty of other 
customers who are prepared to pay for stuff they haven't ordered.

>
>> The creation of software takes time, effort, and money. The money has to
>> come from somewhere, and (from the software developer's perspective at
>> least) it comes from the client. And I realise it's a tricky concept,
>> but it's true: He who pays the piper calls the tune.
>
> So who is paying the above mentioned student by the hour?

That depends on how students are funded in that institution, and it's 
irrelevant to the question at hand.

>
>> 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. If you
>> charge him for it anyway, he has the right to refuse. If it went to
>> court, he'd win.
>
> You keep going on about "the client".  You seem to think that all
> programmers work by the hour and that all software is single use to be
> thrown away.

You seem to jump to false conclusions very quickly. I don't think all 
software is single-use. Nor do I think that all programmers work by the 
hour. Nor do I think that all programmers have clients in the sense that 
you are taking it. Some have employers. Some are hobbyists. Some /are/ 
employers. By "client" I only mean the person that foots the bill. That 
might be the programmer himself. Or it might mean the taxpayer. Or it 
might mean people who buy the software off the shelf in a shop. Or it 
might mean an IT department in a large company. The possibilities are 
many and varied, and in /some/ of those scenarios an installation 
program makes sense and in /others/ it doesn't.

>
>> If, however, the "hello, world" student were to add a comment to his
>> answer to the effect that he could on request provide an
>> installer/uninstaller and that it would take no more than H hours and
>> cost no more than P pounds, then he would receive full credit for that
>> worthy answer.
>>
>> Now please stop being such an ass. It is perfectly possible for two
>> people who disagree to have a /civil/ conversation. Why not give it a try?
>
> The trouble is that I've had employees with attitudes such as yours.
> And I never want another one.

<shrug> My attitude is that a good programmer provides what the client 
asks for, and /thinks about/ what the client probably needs but hasn't 
asked for, and then offers it to the client, explaining the impact in 
cost and time. If that's a bad attitude, so be it, but I think it's a 
better attitude than "the programmer is always right".

-- 
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