Building Better Software

  • Comments posted to this topic are about the item Building Better Software

  • I've been a developer for over 30 years. No, it is not easy! 😀

    The problem is the size of the problem domain and the sheer complexity of it. Take the ISO date example. Who has time to be an expert on every single aspect of ISO dates? Being blissfully ignorant on that subject :hehe: my first question as a developer is "why doesn't the ISO date system operate as expected?" Is there a bug in it? If so, why? What's the problem and why would it bite on Jan 1st to 7th of 2013? And, being this is ISO approved, why would there be a bug at all???? If you can't trust the ISO who can you trust?

    Take my current developement project. I'm implementing what could best be described as a "whole business automation system", using VB.NET for the front end and T-SQL for the backend.

    That's two entire, and very complex, languages I have to know. Further, I've only known these languages for about a year now, while keeping up with all the other jobs I have to do as our company's one man IT shop.

    The point being I already know I'm not fluent in either VB.NET or T-SQL and probably won't be for about 3 more years. By "fluent" I mean "know the languages inside out and backwards, able to wring every bit of performance and know all the gotchas to avoid".

    In the meantime I've got to create a program with a predecesser that consisted of 100,000 lines of code, written in a system I've been fluent in for 10 years.

    Oh, and did I mention my users won't take the time to beta test the new system? Because they don't have "time to play". Oh, and that my tool budget is severely constrained?

    And let's not even talk about all the (very complex) tools involved in production, from the ERD tool, to all the Red Gate tools, SSMS, Visual Studio (and add-ons), the profiler, the unit test system...

    Easy my Aunt Sally! 😛

    So what do you do in that situation? You keep it simple. You avoid all the nifty tricks that would probably be faster or need less code, but have unforseen "gotchas" and inexplicable interactions with other features. Since you can't know everything, you concentrate on a small subset you know won't break.

    Then you refactor as you can over the lifetime of the system. (The last system lasted 13 years!)

    And that, my childen, is how Equestria was made! (laughing)

  • On top of all the above is the lack of demanding and/or allowing of following decent processes to ensure high quality software engineering occurs. We all know the "just ship it" attitude remains alive and well and still comes from people who know better but feel that the commercial pressures are too high.

    Gaz

    -- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!

  • It takes little understanding and talent to write bad code that will not work. That is easy. And for the person who has written a few hundred thousand lines of code, it might appear easy to throw something together that may or may not work. But the premise in the editorial is correct, it is not easy to get it right. Compare it to throwing together a few burgers or an omelet to a five course formal dinner with the Queen. One is very easy, the other requires attention to detail that most of us are not use to.

    Good experienced developers who can get the job done right and make it last are expensive. But the industry has to face the fact that those dime-a-dozen developers appear to be cheap to get a product out, but in the long run a far more expensive then the experienced professional.

    M.

    Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!

  • Sometimes I wonder why larger organizations would not test their products before release. Often, I get answer like they want their customers to find bugs. By the time customers start reporting bugs, don't the organizations think their reputation was already got damaged? Most of the times, products are not even beta versions. I think product needs to be well tested for at least obvious defects before even releasing to the market.

  • Building Better Software or Bugs in Software... Unfortunately Steve you have put software on a far too high pedestal. Software, even cowboy hacker buggy software is more reliable than the human operators and users. If you compare software error/bugs in software to human error/bugs, you might have written a different article. Financial and productivity loss from human problems makes software problems an after thought. What you really should be writing about is how we falsely reason that it's so much easier to fix the human problem than the software problem, when really it's not.

    Ever had a human run a Delete with no where, not tested their backups, damaged the backups, turned the wrong server off, changed the sa password then gone one holidays, rogue admin, etc. That's just the easy ones. How about made wrong security choices, wrong storage location or space allocation, poor performing SQL, bad indexes, office politics, etc.

    Complaining about software bugs like it's a real source of drama is like complaining about the weather; it's just vanity.

  • I'm not sure that comparing human mistakes to software mistakes is fair. Software mistakes can easily affect a large group of people and impact lots of business. Forgetting backups, while tragic, happens lots without there being a problem.

    I'm not sure which one is worse. Certainly there is something to the idea that humans reduce efficiency more than poorly written software, but that might be hard to quantify. Maybe I need to think about that a bit.

  • The referenced article also has plenty of mistakes. :laugh:

    Ask Ars: Why will Apple's Do Not Disturb bug fix itself next week?

    http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/01/ask-ars-why-will-apples-do-not-disturb-bug-fix-itself-next-week/

    For example:

    "The first day of 2013 started on a Tuesday, whereas (as noted by TUAW) the ISO standard expects the first week of the year to start on "the Monday that contains the first Thursday in January." In this case, that would be January 7, 2013."

    The first ISO week for 2013 starts on December 31, 2012, not January 7, 2013. The first ISO week of the year can start no later that January 4 of any year, and will be in the range of 29 December of the prior calendar year to 4 January of the current calendar year.

    ISO week date

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_week_date

  • Ok, not a convincing enough argument? How about the Internet. The biggest usage of software by humans and the major outages have been caused by what or whom? Human operator error.

    But back to your point: Software mistakes affect many people. Why is that? How have been become so dependent on software when it has so many problems and bugs? Because software bugs are a stereotype.

    Really, the amount of problems compared to working solutions is incomparable, but we pick on and declare the end of days when something doesn’t go as *we* expected. “Expected”, how many times has a new staff member or college not done things as we expected, but to write an article about that? That’s common knowledge and expected, so who cares!?!

    I agree that comparing human mistakes to software mistakes isn’t fair, as humans make so many more.

  • Scott Anderson-466019 (1/23/2013)


    Ok, not a convincing enough argument? How about the Internet. The biggest usage of software by humans and the major outages have been caused by what or whom? Human operator error.

    But back to your point: Software mistakes affect many people. Why is that? How have been become so dependent on software when it has so many problems and bugs? Because software bugs are a stereotype.

    Really, the amount of problems compared to working solutions is incomparable, but we pick on and declare the end of days when something doesn’t go as *we* expected. “Expected”, how many times has a new staff member or college not done things as we expected, but to write an article about that? That’s common knowledge and expected, so who cares!?!

    I agree that comparing human mistakes to software mistakes isn’t fair, as humans make so many more.

    I'm lost with your argument. Sorry, just not making too much sense to me. Building better software really doesn't have much to do with some of the human errors you mentioned. I really think it is about writing software that does what is expected when properly used. And as we know, there are users that don't use software the way it was intended many times. If you can trap for those "mistakes" and handle them, then you are ahead of the curve in many respects.

  • sruthi.kumar (1/23/2013)


    Sometimes I wonder why larger organizations would not test their products before release. Often, I get answer like they want their customers to find bugs. <snip/>

    I have heard people in organisations that they will put up with customers finding defects as it makes more commercial sense to release earlier and take the flak rather than wait but as desired strategy? Never!!!

    BTW, I do not like the term "bug" as this terminology suggests that it is caused by something extraneous or external to the software. I know that most people who use the term don't feel this way but sometimes that is the impression left with users (and other developers). I prefer the term defect. That is what it is. Someone has created a defect in the software either through action or inaction. I, my colleagues, my peers and hobbyists (unintentionally) introduce defects and we must all accept that. It is human action that causes it not some unidentified invertebrate.

    Gaz

    -- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!

  • Sorry Scott but I agree with Steve and Lynn.

    In the context of a website such as this and an article titled "Building Better Software" we are not comparing the various causes and their produced effects we are talking about engineering better software. Your comparison is valid but, in this context, irrelevant. People are infuriated on a daily basis by poorly written software and, justifiably in my opinion, expect better.

    They feel the same about other products; cars should rarely break down and microwaves should always cook etc.

    There should be, and have been, discussions and articles on the human causes failures. This did not read like one to me (enjoyed it though, thanks Steve).

    Gaz

    -- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!

  • Gary Varga (1/24/2013)


    Sorry Scott but I agree with Steve and Lynn.

    I guess that I agree with all three of you. There are two problems being discussed and both are really problems developers face. When there are errors, bugs, or defects in the software and it does not execute as expected that is a problem. When people use software it can be really messy and they can introduce errors.

    The real issue in the development of software is the development of a product that will do what is expected when the correct data and procedure are followed. And at the same time when the human element is introduced to the process it is inherent in the development of the software to "guide" the user into doing it right.

    Historically we have people who have called this business Software Engineering. That is not just the applied science of Software Development but it is also the engineering of a process built into the software to motivate or entice the user to do it right. In the development of software we often leave the correct path so cryptic and unclear that the user is at a disadvantage and is lucky if they get it right. We can eliminate some human error, not all and we have to remember but we can eliminate some human error with clearly defined pathways through our software and automating the solutions such that the process tells the user that they are about to really blow it or that they are doing it right.

    Problem is that if we seek to develop a solution that is without defect and the process and procedure is perfect we spend far above the normal allowable resources and get into financial problems in our projects.

    If I were to state what I think the problem is I would say that the compromise between what we are willing to pay for and what we need to build it correctly, far too often causes the usability and performance of the software to suffer.

    M.

    Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!

  • Scott,

    There's something to your argument, but I'm not sure how to exactly examine it. As Gary mentioned, poorly written software, or software with issues doesn't necessarily relate when talking about the problems with our use of computers.

    We do have problems with computers, and software can help reduce some of those, but education, practice, retaining people, will also help. That's a separate problem.

  • Scenario One: Plane crashes due to human error.

    Scenario Two: Plane crashes due to computer software error.

    Personally, if I were on that plane, it wouldn't really concern me what caused it, or the difference between the two for that matter. Bottom line is I'd probably be dead either way. I think we all are comparing oranges to tangerines here. Just my take...:-D

    "Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply