Squeak-dev Digest, Vol 22, Issue 20
Blake
blake at kingdomrpg.com
Sat Oct 16 09:19:04 UTC 2004
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 13:33:44 -0700, Rick McGeer <rick at mcgeer.com> wrote:
> It was the observation that running a tight cycle of design, code, and
> test was far more productive that led me to question why, exactly, this
> was the case.
>
> Which led to the insight about dynamic artifacts, etc.
You know, I'm all for trial-and-error. But there's a distinct rush
associated with "getting it right the first time." There's also a rush
associated with turning code into machine language and sending it off with
a big FINISHED on it.
> A better question is WHY we believe that writing papers (as opposed to
> code) is design.
The same reason we believe that supply lines and troop movements is war,
as opposed to just a bunch of guys standing around shooting at each other.
> A cynic would argue it's because incompetents want designs explained to
> them in language they can understand.
Wait, if I'm doing the "writing papers" AND doing the coding, am I
competent when I write the papers and code, but not when I read the
papers?<s>
> A nicer person would argue that our "software engineering" (hate that
> phrase) techniques come from the bad old days of time-shared batch, when
> a tight design-code-test cycle was difficult....
Ha! There wasn't much tighter design-code-test than the bad old days, when
one of the aforementioned batch sat down with a prorgam listing, an
obscure error message, a cup of coffee and cigarette to try to figure out
what had gone wrong. Or maybe with a core dump or a batch of results that
were slightly off.
It was tight because it was very often one person. He was designer, coder,
tester--and if you think the "incompetents" today are bad, imagine 30-40
years ago, when computers were the stuff of sci-fi.
But in some ways, this also made it easier: Your environment was static,
except for occasionally crashing for 3-4 hours at a stretch. You were
charged with very specific results, and you were rewarded for getting
those results correct and (to a lesser extent) without running up the CPU
time. You did not have to be a graphic artist worried about UI design. You
did not have to worry that your boss was going to visit porn sites and
download spyware/adware that would make your software look bad. Etc.
I see very little in the modern design attempts that reflect the old days
at all.
There's an observation about COBOL to be made here, but I've rambled on
long enough.<s>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|