Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ike Naar Newsgroups: comp.programming Subject: Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:23:34 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:23:34 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0be15772a183805a7eecac7d41b73a46"; logging-data="5718"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hlAIACToyctFN7YOo9wlC" User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (NetBSD) Cancel-Lock: sha1:VXIdjUXr2vPOxGR1uY7Cl600y7c= Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:6823 On 2016-07-26, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 26/07/16 11:28, Stefan Ram wrote: >> Richard Heathfield 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!?? > > Good question. In my book, he'd lose a mark (not three marks) out of > ten, but I'd still give him an A if everything else was perfect. It's a > very minor fault. But to change the message completely would lead me to > fail him. And if he included anything that wasn't in the spec, he'd lose > marks for that, too. Smart programmers, if they are naive, deliver software that just works. If they aren't naive, they deliver software that almost works, plus an expensive maintenance contract for future enhancements.