Re: [SystemSafety] Modelling and coding guidelines: "Unambiguous Graphical Representation"

From: Derek M Jones < >
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 23:43:47 +0000


> report, "it sucks". I know people who work for that company, they freely
> admit "our code sucks". No question, it's bad code.
> But here's the deal, I can't invest anything in that code. It's not my
> code to invest in. I'm just the poor hapless user who has to deal with

Would you really invest any time in the code?

With open source I often find it is easier to find a workaround than fix the code.

Some more thoughts on the issue:

> their crap because that's what the publisher wants.

The code serves a useful purpose and you are upset because it is costing you more than it should. The question is not should they fix these problems, but does the increase to their profit make it worthwhile not fixing some of the problems they are going to fix?

The issue of minimal possible code quality is something I am analyzing for a book I am working on. I have some analysis+ evidence that the bound is lower than where many people think it is.

> Your position is fine from a supplier-side perspective, but what about the
> consumer-side? Shouldn't we have a say? At best, all I can do economically

Customers have their say through paying for things and influence the purchases of others.

I have seen appalling written code that has customers are very happy with the product, and well written code where customers hate the product. Yes, this is commercial code, but not safety critical.

We fetishize writing code that follows the latest fashion in how things should be done.

There is a huge hole in the software engineering curriculum: Economics.

Derek M. Jones           Software analysis
tel: +44 (0)1252 520667
The System Safety Mailing List
Received on Wed Mar 02 2016 - 00:44:16 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:08 CEST