Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options
 
PerlMonks  

Re: The Boy Scout Rule

by Anonymous Monk
on Jan 25, 2015 at 15:34 UTC ( #1114443=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to The Boy Scout Rule

Well, Joel is an experienced writer who knows how to address his audience.   You are, of course, sailing on a yacht, not a dinghy, and you are intended to identify most-specifically with his “old salt.”   But the point of view of the rest of the yacht’s crew, and of the millionaire owner, and of every customer that the yacht exists to serve, must also be taken into account, too.   The fact that you are placed into a well-supported bubble also means that your point-of-view is not the only one that must be counted.   And, this is where a lot of the friction arises.

These days, I am mostly a consultant, mostly dealing with existing projects that were written in a variety of languages, including but not limited to Perl.   These projects now have “gray-hair problems,” yet for the most part they are also still earning revenue from still-satisfied clients.   The developers (who are still left), however, always want to “refactor” the code ... to make it, somehow, “–er.”   They insist that it must be done; that their careers are eroding before their eyes without it.   But that’s not the business’s proper point-of-view, and this they do not see.   They count the business owners as being both uninformed and clueless, and often leave perfectly-good jobs for what is no good reason.

bookings.com, for example, exists for two purposes:   to help travelers make bookings, and to help travel professionals receive the benefit of those bookings.”   The company has been financially successful, but not because of Perl and not in spite of it.   Every day, it sails into waters surrounded by hungry sharks and enemy submarines.   If Bookings makes the slightest mis-step, or shows the slightest sign of weakness, they will pounce.   There will be no second chance.

So, a primary testing-concern for Bookings is to be able to ensure that the software does not degrade, as seen by either of its two sets of paying customers.   The number-one concern is not whether the crusty-old code remains crusty (it will ...), but that it continues to earn revenue without incurring returns or loss of goodwill.   “Refactoring” is merely a euphemism for “[partial or total] rewriting.”   The business risk of doing any such thing is enormous, but any change whatever to software that is in service carries similarly disastrous risks.   The one and only way to counter that risk is through effective present-state and future-state Testing.   Testing which may or may not exist, and which, if it does exist, might not be adequate to avoid ... regression.   (And it is not being hyperbolic to say that, “well, the Titanic ‘regressed.’”)   There is no room for error, because the potential business risk is infinite.   Those sharks and submarines won’t leave any flotsam behind.

Therefore, it is most-important to be certain that each change which is introduced into the (now-legacy) code base is clearly understood, correctly installed and then deployed, and that it is known in advance (by objective testing) that regression will not occur ... so that it never does ... so that the torpedoes always miss and the sharks remain hungry.   These are procedural things, and IMHO “software testing” is especially about that procedure.   Testing is the minesweepers and anti-submarine craft which always sail in front of the fleet, and you can be quite sure they’re not just sitting on the foredeck, looking out at the surface of the water and saying self-confidently, “I don’t see anything.”

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: The Boy Scout Rule
by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Jan 25, 2015 at 15:36 UTC

    ... and to anyone who says that PerlMonks does not log you out and allow your post to go as Anonymous Monk, leaving you with no ownership and no recourse ... well, it just did.   Again.   :-[   The post to which this is a reply, used to be my post.   So, if you like, here’s your substitute downvote-target.

      Someone else suggested this already, I repeat: a good software dev would be able to write up a bug report for this showing how to repeat it with exact steps and maybe Network/HTML trace from the debug console of any modern browser. It would be easy enough to turn that on persistently until the bug happened again. Then submit the relevant portion of the log (with passwords scrubbed if present) to pmdev.

      I have no idea if this is a real bug or just user/user-env error and neither do you. Since itís never happened to me and Iíve never seen anyone else mention it, I lean toward the latter.

        It actually is curious, because I was able to Update the post several times.   But then, I was not-logged-on, the post no longer belonged to me (?!), and it was Anonymous.   I can’t offer further explanation.   It is most peculiar behavior, really, because IIRC the post actually became Anoymous.   Anyhow, fairly OT to the present topic.

      So where are the technical details sundialsvc4 ? What good is it to say "it happened again I'm special downvote away" if you're really interested in correcting the problem?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1114443]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (3)
As of 2021-04-19 03:57 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?