On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:22:40 +1100 Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Andreas Waldenburger <use...@geekmail.invalid> writes: > > > Don't get me wrong; our whole system is more fragile than I find > > comfortable. But I guess getting 10ish different parties around the > > globe to work in complete unison is quite a feat, and I'm surprised > > it even works as it is. But it does, and I'm glad we don't have to > > micromanage other people's code. > > It's rather odd that you think of “require general quality standards, > independently measurable and testable” to be “micromanaging”. > I should know better than to argue these things, but I don't. Hmph. We demand testable quality standards, but not of their code. We demand it of their software. We say *what* we want, they decide *how* they'll do it. Noncompliance will be fined, by a contractually agreed amount. Everything beyond that is micromanaging and detracts workforce from the stuff *we* have to do. We are in exactly the same kind of bond with a company that buys our system (and support). I have yet to see any one of them demand to see how we write our code. Why should they care? (Rhetorical question, I refuse to discuss this any further.) > I guess that when even the *customers* will resist implementing such > quality expectations, it's little surprise that the vendors continue > to push out such shoddy work on their customers. > When I'm building bicycles I can go to the trouble of going by what method of galvanization my tires are produced. Or I save myself the trouble and just take the best offer and hold them responsible when they don't deliver on their promise. Both possible, both work, and both appropriate in certain situations. You can keep discussing if you want, I've said more than I was hoping to. /W -- INVALID? DE! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
