I don't think that analogy quite fits :) If the 'grunts' aren't doing
their job, then yes - let's blame them. Or at least help them find
ways to do it better.
-- Michael
[Ed. Let's consider this the end of the thread, please. Unless someone
wants to say something that is directly relevant to
Michael Silk wrote:
I don't think that analogy quite fits :) If the 'grunts' aren't doing
their job, then yes - let's blame them. Or at least help them find
ways to do it better.
If they're not doing their job, no need to blame them - they're
critically injured, captured, or dead. ...or in the
On 4/13/05, der Mouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would question you if you suggested to me that you always assume
to _NOT_ include 'security' and only _DO_ include security if
someone asks.
Security is not a single thing that is included or omitted.
Again, in my experience that is not
So you blame the grunts in the trenches if you lose the war? I mean,
that thinking worked out so well with Vietnam and all... ;-)
regards,
-dsp
I couldn't agree more! This is my whole point. Security isn't 'one
thing', but it seems the original article [that started this
discussion] implied that
The programmer is neither the application architect nor the system
engineer.
In some cases he is. Either way, it doesn't matter. I'm not asking
the programmer to re-design the application, I'm asking them to just
program the design 'correctly' rather than 'with bugs'
Except that sometimes
At 4:21 PM -0400 4/11/05, Dave Paris wrote:
Joel Kamentz wrote:
Re: bridges and stuff.
I'm tempted to argue (though not with certainty) that it seems that the
bridge analogy is flawed
in another way --
that of the environment. While many programming languages have similarities
and many
I would question you if you suggested to me that you always assume
to _NOT_ include 'security' and only _DO_ include security if
someone asks.
Security is not a single thing that is included or omitted.
Again, in my experience that is not true. Programs that are labelled
'Secure' vs
Michael Silk wrote:
Ed,
[...]
Back to the bridge or house example, would you allow the builder to
leave off 'security' of the structure? Allow them to introduce some
design flaws to get it done earlier? Hopefully not ... so why is it
allowed for programming? Why can people cut out 'security' ?
Dave Paris wrote:
It's also much more likely that the foreman (aka
programming manager) told the builder (programmer) to take shortcuts to
meet time and budget - rather than the programmer taking it upon
themselves to be sloppy and not follow the specifications.
I'd note that there is the
Dave,
On Apr 11, 2005 9:58 PM, Dave Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The programmer is neither the application architect nor the system
engineer.
In some cases he is. Either way, it doesn't matter. I'm not asking the
programmer to re-design the application, I'm asking them to just
program the
on Monday April 11, 2005, Damir Rajnovic wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:21:30PM +1000, Michael Silk wrote:
Back to the bridge or house example, would you allow the builder to
leave off 'security' of the structure? Allow them to introduce some
design flaws to get it done earlier?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL
Joel Kamentz wrote:
Re: bridges and stuff.
I'm tempted to argue (though not with certainty) that it seems that the bridge
analogy is flawed
in another way --
that of the environment. While many programming languages have similarities
and many things apply
to all programming,
there are many
13 matches
Mail list logo
