Article View: comp.sw.components
Article #251Re: Schedule and budget are secondary
From: Linda Mundy
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1989 19:52
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1989 19:52
43 lines
2702 bytes
2702 bytes
In article <16202@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) writes:
>linda@rtech.rtech.com (Linda Mundy) writes about my comment that one hard-
>to-pin-down aspect of new-code quality might be:
>> >..."must be able to
>> >survive the next five years of changes, to meet new needs, hacked in by
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >bored second-string maintenance programmers..." ...
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>She says:
>> Dick, I really agreed with the main points of your article, making the above
>> remark come as a surprise. Not picking you in particular, but this is
>> such a common attitude towards maintenance programmers, I thought it might be
>> appropriate as a topic of discussion in its own right...
>
>I agree with Linda's sentiments. Now, to be clear about why I said what I
>did: It IS a common attitude toward maintenance programmers. It's an
>unfortunate, stupid, misdirected attitude. Not only do I NOT agree with
>it; it makes me angry. BUT it's there, and has to be reckoned with. In
>other words, I pointed out that quality software needs to survive being
>hacked over by bad maintenance programmers not because maintenance SHOULD
>be done that way, but because it WILL be done that way, in all likelihood.
>You have to make the software a little hardier than it should need to be
>in order to survive what it will be put through.
>
>Maybe I should also have been careful with the wording so that it would
>have been clear that I meant (second-string) (maintenance programmers), as
>opposed to (second-string maintenance) programmers.
>
Well your main point remains valid, i.e. that one needs to think about
future maintenance/enhancement when coding something. The phrase quoted
above just jumped out at me -- like a red flag in front of a bull -- and
demanded comment...
>--
>Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870
> ...No DOS. UNIX.
--
"Who are you to tell me to question authority?"
Linda Mundy {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!linda
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3829@rtech.rtech.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!oliveb!amdahl!pacbell!rtech!lindaReferences:
<16168@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> <6693@hubcap.clemson.edu> <3807@rtech.rtech.com> <16202@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!oliveb!amdahl!pacbell!rtech!linda From: linda@rtech.rtech.com (Linda Mundy) Newsgroups: comp.sw.components,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Schedule and budget are secondary Message-ID: <3829@rtech.rtech.com> Date: 16 Oct 89 19:52:14 GMT References: <16168@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> <6693@hubcap.clemson.edu> <3807@rtech.rtech.com> <16202@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> Reply-To: linda@rtech.UUCP (Linda Mundy) Organization: Relational Technology Inc, Alameda CA Lines: 43