Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««12345»»»

Why Don't We Have Better Practices? Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 5:13 AM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:29 AM
Points: 12,965, Visits: 10,738
david.wright-948385 (5/15/2014)
Koen Verbeeck (5/15/2014)
I was stating two view points: on one hand, it is pretty impossible to get complex software - such as SQL Server - completely bug free. On the other hand, vendors have too much power in the sense that they can just shrug it off as "it's just a bug and we'll patch it someday. If you don't like it, just buy something else."

I agree - there are two viewpoints, but imho mandatory industry standards aren't going to help.

Perhaps there's a case for an organisation that certifies products or vendors to a given standard (if there isn't one already?). If it is demonstrably independent of vendors, buyers will have confidence that the products they buy are up to that standard. Vendors will be able to justify higher prices as a result of certification, so they benefit. For vendors that can't, or don't wish to meet the standard don't have to, and prices will necessarily be lower. Buyers then have a choice, and buyers with limited funds and flexible standards are free to use them.


Although it's a very nice idea - a certification organisation - I wonder how practical this can be in reality. Testing software is not easy and can take a lot of time. With regular products it's usually easier. You just take a car for a testdrive and decide if you like it or not




How to post forum questions.
Need an answer? No, you need a question.
What’s the deal with Excel & SSIS?

Member of LinkedIn. My blog at LessThanDot.

MCSA SQL Server 2012 - MCSE Business Intelligence
Post #1571249
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 5:33 AM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, September 13, 2014 4:06 AM
Points: 988, Visits: 804
You've come full circle behind my original post I agree: imposing standards is expensive, but making those standards optional gives flexibility.

Those that wish to sign up and can afford the cost will stand out from the crowd. Buyers can pay the extra cost to know(!) that what they're buying is up to standard, or they have the option of buying a down-market product, accepting that they may have problems with it.
Post #1571257
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:02 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:22 AM
Points: 58, Visits: 187
Gary Varga (5/15/2014)
The other reason is that because we deal with abstract concepts, as opposed to the real world with its laws of physics, there are far more ways to do something and for it to work.


This is exactly why I oppose the development of computer controlled vehicles. They unfortunately do obey the laws of physics. Unlike computer controlled machines in stationary situations, automation of cars appears to be creating objects of destruction hurtling at us at alarming speeds. I don't think I want buggy software controlling the one coming at me. As the title of my hypothetical documentary says, "Do we really need to do this s-h-i-t ?
Post #1571269
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:05 AM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:29 AM
Points: 12,965, Visits: 10,738
skeleton567 (5/15/2014)
Gary Varga (5/15/2014)
The other reason is that because we deal with abstract concepts, as opposed to the real world with its laws of physics, there are far more ways to do something and for it to work.


This is exactly why I oppose the development of computer controlled vehicles. They unfortunately do obey the laws of physics. Unlike computer controlled machines in stationary situations, automation of cars appears to be creating objects of destruction hurtling at us at alarming speeds. I don't think I want buggy software controlling the one coming at me. As the title of my hypothetical documentary says, "Do we really need to do this s-h-i-t ?


Not only buggy software. Suppose the software works flawlessly. But it has to choose between two objects to impact when it is going to crash: you in a regular vehicle or the guy on the bike. To minimize damage, it chooses you.




How to post forum questions.
Need an answer? No, you need a question.
What’s the deal with Excel & SSIS?

Member of LinkedIn. My blog at LessThanDot.

MCSA SQL Server 2012 - MCSE Business Intelligence
Post #1571270
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:15 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:22 AM
Points: 58, Visits: 187
Koen Verbeeck (5/15/2014)
skeleton567 (5/15/2014)
Gary Varga (5/15/2014)
The other reason is that because we deal with abstract concepts, as opposed to the real world with its laws of physics, there are far more ways to do something and for it to work.


This is exactly why I oppose the development of computer controlled vehicles. They unfortunately do obey the laws of physics. Unlike computer controlled machines in stationary situations, automation of cars appears to be creating objects of destruction hurtling at us at alarming speeds. I don't think I want buggy software controlling the one coming at me. As the title of my hypothetical documentary says, "Do we really need to do this s-h-i-t ?


Not only buggy software. Suppose the software works flawlessly. But it has to choose between two objects to impact when it is going to crash: you in a regular vehicle or the guy on the bike. To minimize damage, it chooses you.


Excellent point. Either way, somebody is going to get hurt. Some decisions should not be left to software designers, let alone coders. And it's probably still a fact that actual coders are lowest on the totem pole (is that P/C these days?). This illustrates why coding should not be left to peons.
Post #1571273
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:30 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:19 AM
Points: 9, Visits: 13
The only reason we don't have better practices is because the tech companies earn a great deal of money by constantly changing things. New languages, new IDEs, new frameworks, new standards, new run times - all the churn sells software, books, seminars, and training sessions.

You don't have time to get good at any one way of doing things because about the time you're comfortable with version 1.0 an new and improved version 2.0 is launched along with all the requisite training materials.




Post #1571276
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:30 AM
Say Hey Kid

Say Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey Kid

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, September 19, 2014 8:20 AM
Points: 663, Visits: 1,675
Poor management.

Take the case of Target. Were IT professionals and responsible aware people in charge of securing their network??. Maybe at some level, but not where the buck stopped or where budgets were decided. The ex-CIO was more interested in social media and marketing than securing their network. They had money to predict pregnancy among customers but not enough to ensure security.
Post #1571277
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:58 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:33 AM
Points: 375, Visits: 604
Try programming in APL. That is one bizarre language!
Post #1571285
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:06 AM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, September 13, 2014 4:06 AM
Points: 988, Visits: 804
skeleton567 (5/15/2014)
This is exactly why I oppose the development of computer controlled vehicles.

I'm kinda hoping that the software controlling automatic cars will fall under similar standards as airplane (particularly military) control software. If GM can have this much trouble over an ignition switch, imagine how much they'd be able to get wrong if they automate the driving of the car
Post #1571291
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:09 AM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:29 AM
Points: 12,965, Visits: 10,738
david.wright-948385 (5/15/2014)
skeleton567 (5/15/2014)
This is exactly why I oppose the development of computer controlled vehicles.

I'm kinda hoping that the software controlling automatic cars will fall under similar standards as airplane (particularly military) control software. If GM can have this much trouble over an ignition switch, imagine how much they'd be able to get wrong if they automate the driving of the car


What if they run java and right before the car needs to break for a traffic jam, the garbage collector kicks in...




How to post forum questions.
Need an answer? No, you need a question.
What’s the deal with Excel & SSIS?

Member of LinkedIn. My blog at LessThanDot.

MCSA SQL Server 2012 - MCSE Business Intelligence
Post #1571292
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12345»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse