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

Groups > comp.programming > #6855

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

Show all headers | View raw

On 28/07/16 11:43, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <nn9ndi$7tl$1@dont-email.me>, rjh@cpax.org.uk says...
>>
>> 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.
>
> So why would an installer/uninstaller be needed for a program that is
> used once?

I don't know where you got 'once' from. The regression test comparison 
program I based my example on was used /daily/ for several months, by 
several different developers. But you're right anyway - why /would/ you 
write an installer/uninstaller for a one-off program? It's just daft.

> The original discussion was in the context of software that reasonably
> might be installed by someone other than the original programmer.

The point of my example was to show that there are environments in which 
installers are inappropriate, and the real world program on which that 
example was based /was/ installed by a number of people other than the 
original programmer. It wasn't hard to install. Copy, and you're done.


> I
> don't write installer/uninstallers for programs that I am going to use
> once or twice and toss but that is not the context of the original
> discussion.

And I don't write installers/uninstallers for programs that will be used 
a great many times by lots of people /unless/ to do so makes more sense 
than not to do so. That's a decision I make on a case-by-case basis. 
But, wherever possible and sensible, I design programs in such a way as 
to minimise their impact on their environment. I try, where possible, to 
avoid the registry. Why? Because the registry is probably already 
chock-full of junk, and the last thing the user needs is for me to add 
more. But if my program /has/ to use the registry, so be it. I know how 
to do it - in fact, it's laughably easy - but it's just something I try 
to avoid. Mostly because I like the idea of being able to use a program 
without first having to sew it into the lining of the OS. And partly 
because I like the idea of being able to remove a program from the 
system without the need for scissors.

-- 
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