Goodbye, My Good Friend.

[Capt.Doug]

And so we must part again. Economic obsolescence brings despair once again.
The joy, the inner peace, the relaxing comfort that comes with a familiar
trusted colleague slips away once more. The anxiety of starting over with a
new partner is facing me, again. The future is daunting.

My first partner was the Cadillac of beauties. Her shape was designed in the
age of the slide-rule. Slide-rules must have some majic in them. She could
run faster than most any of the young ones running around these days. We
took to each other right quick. She would do anything that I asked of her
and submitted graciously to every nuance of my hands. She made me look good
every day. I've heard it said that she could be cantankerous, but that just
isn't true. She was the gentlest love I could ever hope for.

The honeymoon never ended, but eventually my first partner slipped away,
courtesy of Big Corporation seducing Big Government. In an instant, I was on
the street, never to be with the 3-holed princess again. I still miss her.
She was my first and she is still my truest love, but with three mouths to
feed, she was getting too expensive to feed. With age working it's evil, she
required ever more maintenance. She just couldn't compete with the young
ones anymore. I hated to leave her, but I had no choice. I had to move on.
We didn't even get to say good-bye.

My next love was a Chevrolet when compared to the Caddilac. She wasn't as
elegant, and she wasn't as fast, but she fulfilled her duties without
complaint. She would embarrass me on occassion, but she never failed me. She
had some unpleasant habits. She kept me warm in the summer but not in the
winter. She could emit some rather unpleasant odors if she wasn't serviced
properly. Some of her accessories were out of fashion. However these
short-comings were overlooked because she was dependable, reliable, and
trustworthy. We always accomplished what we set out to do.

She brought me many compliments, but she was getting expensive. A power much
higher than myself decided we had to seperate. She was getting too
expensive. The younger ones may cost more, but they don't eat as much.

We had one last fling together. We woke up on a Caribbean island to
beautiful sunrise. The flight to Florida was smooth. During the entire
flight, she never complained once. She simply did as she was asked, as she
has for many years. Then I said good-bye, managed to keep from letting a
tear show, and walked away. Good-bye, my good friend.

So now I face the future. My next partner has been selected. She is born to
a younger generation. I face her with scepticism. She may turn out to be a
good partner, but I doubt she will have the romance of my past loves. I'm
told that she will do what she is asked, as long as I keep my hands off her.
Just make the mortgage payments on her and she will fufill her obligations,
but forget about carressing her. My heart aches.

D. (B-727, MD-80, and now a f**king computer with wings)

[Jay Beckman]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...

Beautiful prose Capt...

Worth keeping.

Jay B

[Franklin Newton]

Nicely said Capt. Doug, the note I saw on a super connie bulkhead that
crashed in Stockton CA, a long time ago, from the last Western Captain to
fly her, indicates you are not alone.
"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> And so we must part again. Economic obsolescence brings despair once
again.
> The joy, the inner peace, the relaxing comfort that comes with a familiar
> trusted colleague slips away once more. The anxiety of starting over with
a
> new partner is facing me, again. The future is daunting.
>
> My first partner was the Cadillac of beauties. Her shape was designed in
the
> age of the slide-rule. Slide-rules must have some majic in them. She could
> run faster than most any of the young ones running around these days. We
> took to each other right quick. She would do anything that I asked of her
> and submitted graciously to every nuance of my hands. She made me look
good
> every day. I've heard it said that she could be cantankerous, but that
just
> isn't true. She was the gentlest love I could ever hope for.
>
> The honeymoon never ended, but eventually my first partner slipped away,
> courtesy of Big Corporation seducing Big Government. In an instant, I was
on
> the street, never to be with the 3-holed princess again. I still miss her.
> She was my first and she is still my truest love, but with three mouths to
> feed, she was getting too expensive to feed. With age working it's evil,
she
> required ever more maintenance. She just couldn't compete with the young
> ones anymore. I hated to leave her, but I had no choice. I had to move on.
> We didn't even get to say good-bye.
>
> My next love was a Chevrolet when compared to the Caddilac. She wasn't as
> elegant, and she wasn't as fast, but she fulfilled her duties without
> complaint. She would embarrass me on occassion, but she never failed me.
She
> had some unpleasant habits. She kept me warm in the summer but not in the
> winter. She could emit some rather unpleasant odors if she wasn't serviced
> properly. Some of her accessories were out of fashion. However these
> short-comings were overlooked because she was dependable, reliable, and
> trustworthy. We always accomplished what we set out to do.
>
> She brought me many compliments, but she was getting expensive. A power
much
> higher than myself decided we had to seperate. She was getting too
> expensive. The younger ones may cost more, but they don't eat as much.
>
> We had one last fling together. We woke up on a Caribbean island to
> beautiful sunrise. The flight to Florida was smooth. During the entire
> flight, she never complained once. She simply did as she was asked, as she
> has for many years. Then I said good-bye, managed to keep from letting a
> tear show, and walked away. Good-bye, my good friend.
>
> So now I face the future. My next partner has been selected. She is born
to
> a younger generation. I face her with scepticism. She may turn out to be
a
> good partner, but I doubt she will have the romance of my past loves. I'm
> told that she will do what she is asked, as long as I keep my hands off
her.
> Just make the mortgage payments on her and she will fufill her
obligations,
> but forget about carressing her. My heart aches.
>
> D. (B-727, MD-80, and now a f**king computer with wings)
>
>

[Warren Jones]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> And so we must part again. Economic obsolescence brings despair once
> again.
> The joy, the inner peace, the relaxing comfort that comes with a familiar
> trusted colleague slips away once more. The anxiety of starting over with
> a
> new partner is facing me, again. The future is daunting.
>
[snipped]
>
> So now I face the future. My next partner has been selected. She is born
> to
> a younger generation. I face her with scepticism. She may turn out to be
> a
> good partner, but I doubt she will have the romance of my past loves. I'm
> told that she will do what she is asked, as long as I keep my hands off
> her.
> Just make the mortgage payments on her and she will fufill her
> obligations,
> but forget about carressing her. My heart aches.
>
> D. (B-727, MD-80, and now a f**king computer with wings)
>

Hey Doug, look on the bright side. At least she's French. I hear they make
good lovers. Well, that is, I hear they know how to f**k you, one way or
the other. :-)

I'll talk to you next time you're flying by,

Chip, ZTL

[OtisWinslow]

Nice story, Doug. I had a friend who upgraded to one of those French
machines after years in DC-9s. I worried that somehow Bill Gates was
responsible for some of the software in them. He said the most frequent
communication with the FO was .. "crap .. why the f*&k is it doing that?".


"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> And so we must part again. Economic obsolescence brings despair once
> again.
> The joy, the inner peace, the relaxing comfort that comes with a familiar
> trusted colleague slips away once more. The anxiety of starting over with
> a
> new partner is facing me, again. The future is daunting.
>
> My first partner was the Cadillac of beauties. Her shape was designed in
> the
> age of the slide-rule. Slide-rules must have some majic in them. She could
> run faster than most any of the young ones running around these days. We
> took to each other right quick. She would do anything that I asked of her
> and submitted graciously to every nuance of my hands. She made me look
> good
> every day. I've heard it said that she could be cantankerous, but that
> just
> isn't true. She was the gentlest love I could ever hope for.
>
> The honeymoon never ended, but eventually my first partner slipped away,
> courtesy of Big Corporation seducing Big Government. In an instant, I was
> on
> the street, never to be with the 3-holed princess again. I still miss her.
> She was my first and she is still my truest love, but with three mouths to
> feed, she was getting too expensive to feed. With age working it's evil,
> she
> required ever more maintenance. She just couldn't compete with the young
> ones anymore. I hated to leave her, but I had no choice. I had to move on.
> We didn't even get to say good-bye.
>
> My next love was a Chevrolet when compared to the Caddilac. She wasn't as
> elegant, and she wasn't as fast, but she fulfilled her duties without
> complaint. She would embarrass me on occassion, but she never failed me.
> She
> had some unpleasant habits. She kept me warm in the summer but not in the
> winter. She could emit some rather unpleasant odors if she wasn't serviced
> properly. Some of her accessories were out of fashion. However these
> short-comings were overlooked because she was dependable, reliable, and
> trustworthy. We always accomplished what we set out to do.
>
> She brought me many compliments, but she was getting expensive. A power
> much
> higher than myself decided we had to seperate. She was getting too
> expensive. The younger ones may cost more, but they don't eat as much.
>
> We had one last fling together. We woke up on a Caribbean island to
> beautiful sunrise. The flight to Florida was smooth. During the entire
> flight, she never complained once. She simply did as she was asked, as she
> has for many years. Then I said good-bye, managed to keep from letting a
> tear show, and walked away. Good-bye, my good friend.
>
> So now I face the future. My next partner has been selected. She is born
> to
> a younger generation. I face her with scepticism. She may turn out to be
> a
> good partner, but I doubt she will have the romance of my past loves. I'm
> told that she will do what she is asked, as long as I keep my hands off
> her.
> Just make the mortgage payments on her and she will fufill her
> obligations,
> but forget about carressing her. My heart aches.
>
> D. (B-727, MD-80, and now a f**king computer with wings)
>
>

[John]

Doug,

I never flew either one and the way things look . . . I probably never
will. Thank you for affirming that such things are worth a tear (or
more), even if to most, we can't explain why.

Blue skies . . .

John

[Capt.Doug]

>"OtisWinslow" wrote in message> He said the most frequent
> communication with the FO was .. "crap .. why the f*&k is it doing that?".

An experienced computer driver says "crap .. why the f*&k is it doing that
AGAIN?"

D.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Warren Jones" wrote in message > I'll talk to you next time you're flying
by,


Heh, heh... It's a different ballgame for sure. When I was coming up, any
flight engineer or first officer worth his salt could draw a full hydraulic
diagram or electrical schematic from memory. We could diagnose problems and
deduce remedies effectively. That's changed now. With over 100 computers all
talking to each other in one manner or another, I can't even memorize the
acronyms. The mecnanics can fly the sim just as well as the pilots.

I'll be talking to you soon, if I make it through training :-)

D.

[Roger]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:51:10 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

>"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
>
>Beautiful prose Capt...
>
>Worth keeping.

Likewise, that one went into the keeper file.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Jay B
>

[George Patterson]

Capt.Doug wrote:
>
> An experienced computer driver says "crap .. why the f*&k is it doing that
> AGAIN?"

Actually, the way I usually say it is "crap .. NOW why the f*&k is it doing that?"

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[CryptWolf]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"OtisWinslow" wrote in message> He said the most frequent
> > communication with the FO was .. "crap .. why the f*&k is it doing
that?".
>
> An experienced computer driver says "crap .. why the f*&k is it doing that
> AGAIN?"

Often followed by "I thought I fixed that"

[Mike Weller]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 02:01:05 -0400, Roger
> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:51:10 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
>wrote:
>
>>"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>Beautiful prose Capt...
>>
>>Worth keeping.
>
>Likewise, that one went into the keeper file.
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>Jay B
>>

Very good description. Definately a keeper here also.

Mike Weller

[Mike Weller]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:00:16 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
wrote:

>>"OtisWinslow" wrote in message> He said the most frequent
>> communication with the FO was .. "crap .. why the f*&k is it doing that?".
>
>An experienced computer driver says "crap .. why the f*&k is it doing that
>AGAIN?"
>
>D.
>

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

Old cliche, but I'm a software developer and I hate testing.

Mike Weller

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Weller wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:00:16 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>"OtisWinslow" wrote in message> He said the most frequent
>>>communication with the FO was .. "crap .. why the f*&k is it doing that?".
>>
>>An experienced computer driver says "crap .. why the f*&k is it doing that
>>AGAIN?"
>>
>>D.
>>
>
>
> "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
>
> Old cliche, but I'm a software developer and I hate testing.

If you didn't make so many mistakes, you wouldn't need to test! :-)

Matt (a former software developer)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> > "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
> >
> > Old cliche, but I'm a software developer and I hate testing.
>
> If you didn't make so many mistakes, you wouldn't need to test! :-)

Don't care if you don't make mistakes. You still need to verify the correction
operation of the system.

(engineer representing the buyer).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Mike Weller]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:52:32 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> > "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
>> >
>> > Old cliche, but I'm a software developer and I hate testing.
>>
>> If you didn't make so many mistakes, you wouldn't need to test! :-)
>
>Don't care if you don't make mistakes.
>You still need to verify the correction
>operation of the system.
>

Well put.

Mike Weller

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>>"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
>>>
>>>Old cliche, but I'm a software developer and I hate testing.
>>
>>If you didn't make so many mistakes, you wouldn't need to test! :-)
>
>
> Don't care if you don't make mistakes. You still need to verify the correction
> operation of the system.
>
> (engineer representing the buyer).
>

Only if the software engineers made mistakes. If they wrote the
software correctly against the requirements, then there would be nothing
to test. Then again, that assumes that the buyer knew what they wanted
and wrote the requirements accordingly. :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Weller wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:52:32 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"
>>>>
>>>>Old cliche, but I'm a software developer and I hate testing.
>>>
>>>If you didn't make so many mistakes, you wouldn't need to test! :-)
>>
>>Don't care if you don't make mistakes.
>>You still need to verify the correction
>>operation of the system.
>>
>
>
> Well put.
>
> Mike Weller

"the correction operation of the system" is "well put?" Herein lies the
problem.

Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> >>Don't care if you don't make mistakes.
> >>You still need to verify the correction
> >>operation of the system.
>
> "the correction operation of the system" is "well put?" Herein lies the
> problem.

typo. the correct operation of the system must be verified
(I are an engineer).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Only if the software engineers made mistakes. If they wrote the
> software correctly against the requirements, then there would be nothing
> to test. Then again, that assumes that the buyer knew what they wanted
> and wrote the requirements accordingly. :-)

of course there is still something to test.

Don't confuse testing to detect an error with testing to show the customer
that the system is operating correctly.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>Only if the software engineers made mistakes. If they wrote the
>>software correctly against the requirements, then there would be nothing
>>to test. Then again, that assumes that the buyer knew what they wanted
>>and wrote the requirements accordingly. :-)
>
>
> of course there is still something to test.
>
> Don't confuse testing to detect an error with testing to show the customer
> that the system is operating correctly.
>

That should be a demonstration, not a test.
Unfortunately, since all software systems are still delivered with
defects, it does constitute a test. :-)

Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> > Don't confuse testing to detect an error with testing to show the customer
> > that the system is operating correctly.
>
> That should be a demonstration, not a test.
> Unfortunately, since all software systems are still delivered with
> defects, it does constitute a test. :-)

Try demonstrating the correct operation of the TCAS II algorithms. :-/

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>>>Don't confuse testing to detect an error with testing to show the customer
>>>that the system is operating correctly.
>>
>>That should be a demonstration, not a test.
>>Unfortunately, since all software systems are still delivered with
>>defects, it does constitute a test. :-)
>
>
> Try demonstrating the correct operation of the TCAS II algorithms. :-/
>

Shouldn't be much harder then testing them exhaustively. ;-)

Matt

[Jose]

> If they wrote the software correctly against the requirements, then there would be nothing to test.

How do you convince the customer that the software is written correctly
against the requirements? Especially given the experience most of us
have with software?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> If they wrote the software correctly against the requirements, then
>> there would be nothing to test.
>
>
> How do you convince the customer that the software is written correctly
> against the requirements? Especially given the experience most of us
> have with software?

You can't, I was being facetious. Since the OP writes software, I knew
he'd understand.

However, he also understands that only a very, very naive customer
believes that the tests you show them ensures that the software is
written correctly against the requirements.

Software development is still progressing, albeit glacially, but we have
a long ways to go. As long as the s/w community insists on using
substandard tools such as C++ and such, things will progress slowly.


Matt

[Mike Weller]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:00:38 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>>>Don't care if you don't make mistakes.
>>>You still need to verify the correction
>>>operation of the system.
>>>

>> Well put.
>>
>> Mike Weller
>
>"the correction operation of the system" is "well put?" Herein lies the
>problem.
>
>Matt

That was my point. I hate smileys.

Mike Weller

[Mike Weller]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:38:09 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

snip here and there,

>You can't, I was being facetious. Since the OP writes software, I knew
>he'd understand.
>
>However, he also understands that only a very, very naive customer
>believes that the tests you show them ensures that the software is
>written correctly against the requirements.
>
>Software development is still progressing, albeit glacially, but we have
>a long ways to go. As long as the s/w community insists on using
>substandard tools such as C++ and such, things will progress slowly.
>
>
>Matt

Now you've really really got my interest.

Substandard?

What is standard? I really do want to improve on C++, but I haven't
seen anything better.

Please don't say Ada.

Mike Weller

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
news:1124124085.7f7946b83a82b2e392e47822e8419de4@o nlynews...
>>Software development is still progressing, albeit glacially, but we have
>>a long ways to go. As long as the s/w community insists on using
>>substandard tools such as C++ and such, things will progress slowly.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
> Now you've really really got my interest.
>
> Substandard?
>
> What is standard? I really do want to improve on C++, but I haven't
> seen anything better.

(getting sucked into an off-topic thread...)

I think he's talking about the fact that development tools still allow
programmers to do stupid things. For example, Java and C# add a layer of
protection, making it more difficult for programmers to screw things up.
They are still procedural languages, and it may be that programming really
needs a whole paradigm shift to some other sort of programming. Charles
Simonyi was pushing something he was calling "intentional programming" a
while back...so far, nothing real has come of that, but the general thought
that getting a little further from the underlying Turing machine may reduce
mistakes is still valid, IMHO.

That said, most of the problems with programming stem from how careless
people are while doing it. As a programmer myself, I am well aware of the
difference between well-written code and poorly-written code. Most code is
poorly-written, IMHO. This is true through all phases of implementation,
from the original design and architecture, through the actual coding, and
finally with respect to testing, both on the part of the programmer as well
as on the quality assurance folks, should they actually exist.

For the most part, engineering in other technical areas tries to take into
account human error. Structures are built with some margin of extra
strength, machinery attempts to include designs that help prevent the user
from killing themselves, etc. Programming, on the other hand, still pretty
much lets the programmer do whatever dumb thing they want. Protected memory
operating systems (ie, pretty much every operating system in common use
today) do help prevent one bad programmer from messing up someone else's
stuff. But even there, a given application is not protected from itself,
and certain components of the operating system can still bring the whole
mess down (audio and video drivers being a common culprit).

At some point, perhaps programming WILL develop better tools, and maybe even
more stringent standards of quality. I saw an ultrasound machine at the
hospital crash the other day; during a routine exam, this wasn't a problem,
but what if it had been being used during some kind of invasive procedure
(ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirate, for example). And no, the
ultrasound machine wasn't running Windows (or any other off-the-shelf
operating system). The more pervasive computers become, the more important
it will be to hold programmers to higher standards.

Until then, they are going to keep making the same stupid mistakes every
other careless human being does on a daily basis. And there are a LOT of
careless human beings.

Please note, the above is a broad oversimplification of the issues at hand.
This is the sort of thing that a professional committee could spend a year
talking about and still not come up with a good answer. Pretty hard to sum
up in a single Usenet post, even a long one. :)

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Mike Weller wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:38:09 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
> snip here and there,
>
>
>>You can't, I was being facetious. Since the OP writes software, I knew
>>he'd understand.
>>
>>However, he also understands that only a very, very naive customer
>>believes that the tests you show them ensures that the software is
>>written correctly against the requirements.
>>
>>Software development is still progressing, albeit glacially, but we have
>>a long ways to go. As long as the s/w community insists on using
>>substandard tools such as C++ and such, things will progress slowly.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Now you've really really got my interest.
>
> Substandard?
>
> What is standard? I really do want to improve on C++, but I haven't
> seen anything better.
>
> Please don't say Ada.

Ada is better from a reliability and correctness perspective. So is
Java. However, I think that longer term model-based development tools
show the greatest promise.

Matt

[Grumman-581]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Ada is better from a reliability and correctness perspective. So is
> Java.

I disagree... You can write crap code in ANY language... I've worked on
Ada and Java projects... Although I have more confidence in Ada than
Java, neither are what I would call "confidence inspiring"... Although
C++ has some nice features, I prefer to stick with straight 'C' from a
portability standpoint... With a statically linked executable, I can
have a pretty good feeling that my executable is going to run the same
each time it is executed... With DLLs and such, this is not possible,
so I avoid them... Unfortunately, sometimes it's difficult to
completely avoide them when you're forced to program for Windoze
platforms...

> However, I think that longer term model-based development tools
> show the greatest promise.

And, exactly WHAT have you been inhaling?

<rant-mode>
The problem that I see these days is that the 'developers' no longer
have to design an entire system... MS has ushered in the age of
fill-in-the-blank programming... These 'developers' draw their user
interface dialogs and how they relate to each other and then all they
have to do is fill in the pieces of code for the various callback
functions...
</rant-mode>

[Mike Weller]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:33:15 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:


>(getting sucked into an off-topic thread...)

I don't think so. Computers have become such an important part of
flying that we need to address them as much as aerodynamics. Air
Traffic Control, navigation, flight planning, and to a growing extent
our engine controls, are members of that domain.

>
>I think he's talking about the fact that development tools still allow
>programmers to do stupid things.

So does the mechanic that forgot to check the last oil line on my
favorite 210. Forced landing and a ruined brand new TSIO-520.

>For example, Java and C# add a layer of
>protection, making it more difficult for programmers to screw things up.

I tried for years to sell a product called the Input/Output
Requirements Language. In theory it would produce the final code from
the requirement's visual and textual description.

>They are still procedural languages, and it may be that programming really
>needs a whole paradigm shift to some other sort of programming. Charles
>Simonyi was pushing something he was calling "intentional programming" a
>while back...so far, nothing real has come of that, but the general thought
>that getting a little further from the underlying Turing machine may reduce
>mistakes is still valid, IMHO.

I'm not so sure. To me, as a developer, I think that de-humanizing is
the worst solution. Counting lines of code produced per hour is a
good example. We need to get back to individual responsibility for
quality control. And more importantly, individual input for finding
design flaws and their correction. It worked well for NASA in the
1960s. Have we abandonded that work ethic?
>
>That said, most of the problems with programming stem from how careless
>people are while doing it. As a programmer myself, I am well aware of the
>difference between well-written code and poorly-written code.

I'm a brute force programmer myself. My stuff works.

>Most code is
>poorly-written, IMHO. This is true through all phases of implementation,
>from the original design and architecture, through the actual coding, and
>finally with respect to testing, both on the part of the programmer as well
>as on the quality assurance folks, should they actually exist.
>

One of the hardest things that I've done is customer acceptance.
Despite all of the meetings and testing, there is no way we can seem
to just let the system work. There is always something more to do.
That is the point where I would dearly love to start over again with
the latest technology and "do it right".

>For the most part, engineering in other technical areas tries to take into
>account human error. Structures are built with some margin of extra
>strength, machinery attempts to include designs that help prevent the user
>from killing themselves, etc. Programming, on the other hand, still pretty
>much lets the programmer do whatever dumb thing they want. Protected memory
>operating systems (ie, pretty much every operating system in common use
>today) do help prevent one bad programmer from messing up someone else's
>stuff. But even there, a given application is not protected from itself,
>and certain components of the operating system can still bring the whole
>mess down (audio and video drivers being a common culprit).
>

Those are tangible and measurable. With computers it's more like the
fad a few years ago with artificial intellegence. A friend who
studied that at the Phd level explained that the goal was like
defining artificial masculinity. He also looked at genetic
engineering and asked, "What if you changed one line of code in the
most complex program ever written?"

>At some point, perhaps programming WILL develop better tools, and maybe even
>more stringent standards of quality. I saw an ultrasound machine at the
>hospital crash the other day; during a routine exam, this wasn't a problem,
>but what if it had been being used during some kind of invasive procedure
>(ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirate, for example). And no, the
>ultrasound machine wasn't running Windows (or any other off-the-shelf
>operating system). The more pervasive computers become, the more important
>it will be to hold programmers to higher standards.
>

Yes, and that gets back to the individual.

>Until then, they are going to keep making the same stupid mistakes every
>other careless human being does on a daily basis. And there are a LOT of
>careless human beings.
>

We're human. Thank God. Or at least the incredibly long string of
random events that put us here.

>Please note, the above is a broad oversimplification of the issues at hand.
>This is the sort of thing that a professional committee could spend a year
>talking about and still not come up with a good answer. Pretty hard to sum
>up in a single Usenet post, even a long one. :)
>
>Pete
>

Mike Weller

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>Ada is better from a reliability and correctness perspective. So is
>>Java.
>
>
> I disagree... You can write crap code in ANY language... I've worked on
> Ada and Java projects... Although I have more confidence in Ada than
> Java, neither are what I would call "confidence inspiring"... Although
> C++ has some nice features, I prefer to stick with straight 'C' from a
> portability standpoint... With a statically linked executable, I can
> have a pretty good feeling that my executable is going to run the same
> each time it is executed... With DLLs and such, this is not possible,
> so I avoid them... Unfortunately, sometimes it's difficult to
> completely avoide them when you're forced to program for Windoze
> platforms...

Sure, you can write lousy software in any language. And you can write
fairly good software in assembly language. However, a language like Ada
makes it harder to make many of the common mistakes made when using
pointers and other memory access and management mechanisms. How many
Ada programs fail by accessing arbitrary memory locations?

No argument with you about Windoze. I gave up software engineering when
RSX and VMS fell by the wayside. After taking a course in C++ and then
one in Windows programming, I just lost all interest in writing
software. C++ is simply a pathetic tool for writing quality software.
When the instructor spent an entire day of a week long course trying to
explain all of the possible nuances of constructor execution, I knew we
were in trouble! :-)


>>However, I think that longer term model-based development tools
>>show the greatest promise.
>
>
> And, exactly WHAT have you been inhaling?

Certainly, not what you are...


> <rant-mode>
> The problem that I see these days is that the 'developers' no longer
> have to design an entire system... MS has ushered in the age of
> fill-in-the-blank programming... These 'developers' draw their user
> interface dialogs and how they relate to each other and then all they
> have to do is fill in the pieces of code for the various callback
> functions...
> </rant-mode>

Well, yes and no. I also believe the lack of system understanding is a
problem, however, having developers utilize building blocks isn't a bad
deal. If you look at other engineering disciplines, nobody starts from
scratch each time. Most bridges, buildings, cars or airplanes use a lot
of standardized components. Software needed be any different, IMO.

Matt