Perl: the Markov chain saw | |
PerlMonks |
Re^2: OpEd: Programming is not Team Sportsby sundialsvc4 (Abbot) |
on May 25, 2012 at 17:52 UTC ( [id://972507]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Bouncing a bit off of your fourth paragraph, let me play Devil’s advocate for a sec. I wonder if it could be argued that ... if you spent X months building something to be told then that “that’s not right,” then you obviously didn’t build your blueprints. I wonder also if it could be argued that what you are suggesting is actually an apologetic for, “let’s just make the whole thing up little-by-little as we go along.” “If you do not know where you are going, you will get there ...” If one oh-so confidently asserts that software should be designed on-the-fly whereas a building or a bridge (that maybe costs less) requires rigorous design and specification ... what is it, exactly, about software that justifies exempting it from the advance planning process that is required even of a company that fixes pot-holes in the street? (The original builders are frequently held liable for those pot-holes, by the way...) Are you seriously telling me that the only way to determine whether a system will be capable of supporting the intended transaction volume is to build the thing, throw it into the water, and see (for the first time, as it were...) if it swims?! I am unconvinced that “there is only one way to find out...” You can’t figure out where to put in a septic tank, much less actually put one in, without doing a soil-percolation test first. (Phew.) When the plans are drawn-up and approved, this sort of preliminary investigation and calculation has already been completed. This Devil’s advocate says ... “Baloney!” What say ye now?
In Section
Meditations
|
|