On 23 Jan 2007 11:00:44 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clark Morris) wrote: >But how do we get the message across to the non-technical people in >charge of purchasing or authorizing purchase of laptops that this is >important when you can get the My Eyes Glaze Over effect when you try >to explain it to many IT professionals?
Just tell them this is a requirement. How many such rules do we live under that we don't understand. The bad part about such rules isn't how hard it is to get them, but how hard it is to get rid of them. (There usually isn't any review to find out whether the rules still make sense). It's interesting that testing standards I've seen for OO systems are nowhere near as rigorous as testing standards I've seen for traditional systems. The reason is that there never is total ownership of whatever you use in OO, so the testing standards can't be as rigorous. So people compare time of development and see that the old systems take longer to program. It's really the testing that takes longer. Maybe the standards should match. I worked at a shop which had both PL/I and CoBOL programs. One reason that people chose PL/I for some programs was because it included bounds checking. Actually, what it included was no option to turn off bounds checking. And the standard for the CoBOL programs (established by a long gone systems person), was to set the compile switch to not do bounds checking. That standard didn't make sense with the more powerful machines, when the big cost was in maintenance instead of CPU time - and it especially didn't make sense if people chose their computer language to get around this standard. Well, some people choose Java to get around old standards instead of choosing it for its strengths. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
