see below, please. regards,
Richard Erlacher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave McGuire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [Sdcc-user] documentation & open source generally > On Sep 5, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Richard Erlacher wrote: >>>> With no documented >>>> specifications, there's no way to show that their work is >>>> defective, so they >>>> like doing things that way. >>> >>> That's an awfully big stretch. I, as a programmer, write damn >>> good code...and terrible documentation. That's because I'm a >>> PROGRAMMER, not a writer. >>> >> Do you program to a set of requirements, or do you simply imagine >> what you >> want to write and then, when you think you've finished, accept what >> you >> have, regardless of what it does? How do you know that you've done >> what you >> set out to do? In fact, how do you know you've finished? After >> that, how >> do you verify that it works as it should? There's a huge >> difference between trial and testing, doncha know! > > If it meets the desired goal, it's finished. It's as simple as > that. I get the impression that you like to document, justify, > exhaustively analyze, and probably have meetings about every single > function or subroutine. This is not how software is written in the > real world. > Whose goal would that be? If it's not written down, how do you keep it from changing along the way, resulting in something you never wanted? > >>> Richard, you talk like someone who has been "suitified" for far >>> too long. There was a big push in the 1970s to over-formalize >>> software development, which is where this obsession with "specs" came >>> from. It died in the 1980s. Go write some code! >>> >> As I recall, in the early '70's, at which time I did write code >> (mostly FORTRAN) for a living, >> at least part of the time, things were VERY >> formal. > > ...which is probably why software technology has been lagging that > of hardware since that time... > Then why's the lag gotten so much worse since the mid-'80's, when folks became "enlightened?" Now we have hardware that operates at >1000x as fast, yet the software is 10% the speed, viewed from the user perspective. My old Z80 with CP/M ran payroll faster than my modern computer, and that was on a daisywheel printer, whereas I now concurrently use a laser printer and a fast matrix for multi-part forms. > >> It was going into the '80's that things became "fast and loose." >> The result >> was that folks wrote software that wasn't needed, incorporated >> features, and >> the associated failures, that weren't required, and generated huge >> schedule >> and budget overruns. > > ... and gave us Windows, with which some of the world is still > inexplicably stuck. Then, serious, thinking programmers threw their > managers out of the building, sat down, and wrote serious code. Now > we have modern operating systems and application software that run > correctly, and we get useful work done. > Perhaps, but Windows has met its goal, namely making Microsoft and its shareholders rich beyond anyone's expectations. From the average user's point of view, it makes the computer accessible to the masses, while *NIX never has done that. I don't blame people for preferring that and buying it. Now, if the task were software development, well, the story might be different. > > One of those pieces of application software is SDCC. Many people > here use it to great advantage. You could, too, if you'd only quit > evangelizing your long-dead, never-productive procedure-oriented > methodology and...WRITE SOME DAMN CODE! > As I said, what I need written, for the moment, is already written. I just need to assemble it. In fact I've already done that using other tools, and it's fine. I'd just like to learn how SDCC's tool set is supposed to be used to do the same thing. > >> BTW, Last time I wore a suit was to go to a funeral, and, in fact, >> that was >> the last 3 times. Next time, I hope it will be to my own. I've >> never liked >> neckties and the associated "appearance over substance" culture. > > In that case, I apologize for my implication, and we stand in > agreement regarding that bit of culture. I was responding to what I > saw that "looked and quacked like a duck", if you know what I mean. > >> I'd point out that you've gone on and on but suggested nothing that >> would >> lead to better documentation. >> >> I'm still reading ... and hoping someone comes up with something I >> can use >> to further that goal. > > If you describe what particular difficulty you're hitting, people > here (even I, someone who's about ready to wring your neck) will do > their very best to help you. If you truly do wish to reach the goal > of useful tools used for developing useful firmware, you'll gladly > accept that help. If not, well.. > > -Dave >> > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
