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

From: Derek M Jones < >
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:23:28 +0000


Steve,

>> A very important question. I'm not sure I have the answer, but I
>> data data showing it happening at multiple levels."
>
> That's interesting data, yes. But remember, that data is limited by how
> software development is being practiced today (by largely "highly paid

I want data about today's practices (the data is actually from 2005-2014, the dates used by the papers that originally worked on it). Why would you want data from further back (not that I think things have changed much)?

> amateurs"), and not how software development SHOULD be practiced.

You seem to be willfully refusing to deal with a reality that does not conform to your ideal view of how the world should be.

>> "The benefits of any upfront investment to make savings maintaining
>> what survives to be maintained has to be compared against the
>> costs for all the code that got written, not just what remains."
>
> Some of the software that gets built is intended to be single-use or is of
> intentionally short lifetime. My experience is that's a very small subset.

The data is from large, long lived (10-20 years) projects.

> I argue that what determines survivability of the vast majority of
> software is, essentially, quality. High quality (I.e., well-structured,

Quality as seen by the paying customer, which can be very different from code quality.

> clean, etc.) code that reliably automates a solution is far, far more
> likely to survive than code that's crap (e.g., high technical debt) and is

Unsubstantiated, biased point of view.

Cost of maintenance is a drop in the pond compared to marketing expenses.

What is important is ability to add new features quickly so the next version can be sold to generate revenue. If a product is selling management will pay what it takes to get something out the door.

> Using your terminology from

...
> I'm saying that I can make d1 and m1 such that:
>
> d1 = 0.5 * d
> m1 <= 0.75 * m
>
> Therefore, clearly, for any y >= 0
>
> d1 + y * m1 << d + y * m

Ok. Can I have a copy of your data please. I would be happy to analyze and write about your success.

-- 
Derek M. Jones           Software analysis
tel: +44 (0)1252 520667  blog:shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com
_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx
Received on Fri Mar 04 2016 - 23:23:19 CET

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