Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
Per Westermark
04/12/12 11:01
Read: 757 times
Sweden


 
#187115 - We are careful
Responding to: Richard Erlacher's previous message
Richard Erlacher said:
How you record your efforts and what you call it is up to you. Nevertheless, and we're discussing a major piece of work (LINUX) here, involving multiple participants, and, in order to get everyone onto the same page, people have to have it written on the same page.

So have you visited http://tldp.org/
Maybe you could be a bit specific. What specific things are not documented for Linux but are documented for Windows or for OS-X?

Well, perhaps you can explain how you can "design" something before you define it. I admit that if the effort is performed by one or a very few participants, you can "get by" with meetings and iron our the wrinkles that result from such practice by having further discussion, but once you have multiple participants, in multiple locations, at multiple times, all attempting to produce a single work-product, things have to be formalized in writing.

Yes, but projects run like that with an attempt to do what you suggest (all documentation done before coding start and zero code redesign during project becasue all design issues already documented down to the level required for a developer) have already shown that they either fail or results in huge costs and delays.

What people do is drill down, subdividing the problem into smaller issues and have the different geographical resources work on the internal specifics of their piece. And this is continued until the pieces have reached a size where they can be properly managed. But the individual pieces are still often not trivial, i.e. will require individual research by the individual person or team that is responsible. So the person or team will have to interleave coding and documentation as they work on a solution that can fulfill the basic requirements. The starting documentation is what problem to solve - not how it should be solved.

I have difficulty following your rationale. How can you code something that hasn't been completely defined, the requirements for which haven't been analyzed and decomposed in to their elements, and for which clear criteria haven't been devised?

If I do know the number of objects to sort, the available computing resources etc, I do not need a document that explicitly documents a quick-sort or a heap-sort algorithm. It's enough that the documentation claims that up to 10 million entries of each about 1k size have to be sorted with the result delivered within x milliseconds real-time, y milliseconds CPU time, z megabyte RAM and w disk accesses. The goal is to found the bounding boxes of the different problems - not to micro-manage everything to a crawl.

How can you rigorously demonstrate that your end-product "works" if you haven't devised a test plan that not only demonstrates that all the requirements are met, but how far they can be pushed before failure occurs?

You don't need a billion pages of blueprints for a car to set up a test plan for it. You do not know how the ignition system works to check if the RPM limiter do kick in at the red marker, or to check what happens if the motor is run at max RPM for extended times. And we already know that the requirements for a sports car is that it can go at max RPM on track - but will overheat the engine if run at max RPM standing still on a parking lot.

Next thing - a car manufacturer don't need all information about a car engine to build a car around it. In a real work, just as in software engineering, the focus is on information hiding. Encapsulation. Locality of reference. Solve what needs to be solved - don't worry about how the car engine will behave if you try to run it in space or under water.

How can you predict what will happen to the system when a failure does occur?

Interesting question. Lots of hw guys do build prototypes and abuses them until they fail. But your view is that in sw, we shouldn't build any prototypes, since we aren't allowed to code a single code line until we have written the full and complete sepcifications that even includes the result of this abuse.

In fact, how can you define a failure before you completely define what "works" means?

Interesting question, since it haven't anything to do with your original statement that no code line may be written until there is so much documentation that there are zero need for reengineering. Basically, all systems in the world must have all failures predicted and simulated by brain power alone. For some reason, not too many companies are following that methodology - I wonder why.

List of 92 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
has linux had its chips?      Jez Smith      04/06/12 05:09      
   some weirdo in sandals a ponytail        Andy Neil      04/06/12 05:38      
      Problem is      Jez Smith      04/06/12 06:16      
      possibly, but not only      Erik Malund      04/06/12 08:11      
      It's all in the history ... and "read the code" doesn't work      Richard Erlacher      04/06/12 16:39      
         Good points!      Andy Neil      04/07/12 14:48      
            Why not a firm objective?      Richard Erlacher      04/08/12 00:32      
               Lots of projects have a large percentage research        Per Westermark      04/08/12 14:58      
                  I knew you'd have to come in with something irrelevant      Richard Erlacher      04/08/12 19:29      
                     Try document an invention before it's invented...      Per Westermark      04/08/12 20:16      
                        Here's some research for you, Per      Richard Erlacher      04/09/12 13:03      
                           Richard to give an example      Erik Malund      04/09/12 13:16      
                              I'd like YOU, Erik, to come up with one example ...      Richard Erlacher      04/09/12 13:42      
                                 Always prejudice from Richard      Per Westermark      04/09/12 23:14      
                                 'documenting' means many things      Jim Granville      04/10/12 01:11      
                                 here we go again      Erik Malund      04/10/12 08:00      
                                    when you're wrong, you're wrong      Richard Erlacher      04/12/12 10:52      
                                       I do not have a microscope and probes that small      Erik Malund      04/12/12 12:30      
                                          So you've made no observations ... you just guessed ...      Richard Erlacher      04/15/12 02:22      
                                             and that irks you immensely      Erik Malund      04/15/12 06:33      
                                                What did you do, aside from guessing?      Richard Erlacher      04/15/12 09:04      
                                                   then please, tell me      Erik Malund      04/15/12 15:45      
                                                      Are you willing to explore this in detail?      Richard Erlacher      04/16/12 09:07      
                                                         now you are jumping      Erik Malund      04/16/12 09:38      
                           Your references aren't exactly backing your view      Per Westermark      04/09/12 23:39      
                              It's not about me ... it's about process      Richard Erlacher      04/10/12 00:08      
                                 But processes contains feedback loops      Per Westermark      04/10/12 00:56      
                                    I believe you've gone off-the-rails, Per      Richard Erlacher      04/12/12 11:04      
                                       But getty isn't Linux      Per Westermark      04/12/12 11:28      
                                          it's a small piece, but it's an example      Richard Erlacher      04/15/12 02:10      
                                             But not of Linux      Per Westermark      04/15/12 07:08      
                                                It was part of the distribution.      Richard Erlacher      04/15/12 09:06      
                                 'Research' can mean many things      Jim Granville      04/10/12 01:00      
                                    Yes, but that's in a different context      Richard Erlacher      04/12/12 11:11      
                                       You still haven't told what Linux documentation you miss      Per Westermark      04/12/12 11:44      
                                          I don't know what you mean      Richard Erlacher      04/15/12 02:28      
                                             Still claims based on assumptions and not facts      Per Westermark      04/15/12 07:19      
                                                Not everyone is completely stupid      Richard Erlacher      04/15/12 08:28      
                                                   But what is the relevance today?      Per Westermark      04/15/12 10:08      
                                                      I've no opinion about the current LINUX      Richard Erlacher      04/16/12 09:16      
                                                         and, you Richard, who loves living in the past      Erik Malund      04/16/12 09:40      
                                                            just a minute, Erik      Richard Erlacher      04/17/12 09:36      
                                                               Examples?      Per Westermark      04/17/12 10:42      
                                                                  Nothing has changed since 15 years ago ...      Richard Erlacher      04/17/12 23:03      
                                                                     at least not Richards opinions :)      Erik Malund      04/18/12 07:42      
                                                                     Still lots of assumptions and unbacked claims      Per Westermark      04/18/12 11:59      
                                 Oh, Richard, I have a job for you      Erik Malund      04/10/12 08:14      
                           I had Yourdons first book as manuscript and ...      Erik Malund      04/10/12 08:11      
                              be careful ...      Richard Erlacher      04/12/12 10:23      
                                 were you once a bartender ...      Erik Malund      04/12/12 10:47      
                                    You have to accept the difference ...      Richard Erlacher      04/12/12 11:14      
                                 We are careful      Per Westermark      04/12/12 11:01      
                     Hog Wash.....        Michael Karas      04/08/12 21:57      
                        Odd that you see it that way ...      Richard Erlacher      04/09/12 11:24      
                     I just documented fully      Erik Malund      04/09/12 06:43      
               Because an "Objective" is not a final product specification        Andy Neil      04/09/12 02:36      
                  I have to disagree ... the objective specification is step 1      Richard Erlacher      04/09/12 11:36      
            documentation        Andy Peters      04/09/12 11:02      
               Definitely not the "usual response"      Per Westermark      04/09/12 22:47      
   Android      Joseph Hebert      04/06/12 09:31      
      I don't think so      Jez Smith      04/06/12 12:58      
         Don't agree      Per Westermark      04/07/12 07:05      
      all due respect, no.      Andy Peters      04/09/12 11:11      
         Apple may have a price match on the superluxourious      Erik Malund      04/09/12 11:40      
            re: Apple may have a price match on the superluxourious      Andy Peters      04/11/12 18:31      
               but 95% of the population does not need....      Erik Malund      04/12/12 07:35      
                  Web browsing normally the most power-hungry you can do      Per Westermark      04/12/12 10:32      
                  re: 95%      Andy Peters      04/12/12 10:40      
               So how exactly am I wrong?      Joseph Hebert      04/12/12 08:11      
                  But Android is Linux      Per Westermark      04/12/12 10:41      
                     Just the opposite        Joseph Hebert      04/12/12 12:11      
                        {sigh}      Andy Peters      04/13/12 10:42      
                           just like the preacher said to the atheist      Erik Malund      04/13/12 11:13      
                  re: How exactly?      Andy Peters      04/12/12 11:51      
      850000 Android phones activated per day, linux video      Frieder Ferlemann      04/09/12 11:25      
   anecdotes...      Jim Granville      04/06/12 15:29      
      These guys...      Jez Smith      04/07/12 01:40      
         digital audio consoles      Andy Peters      04/09/12 11:13      
   The Rasperry Pi Foundation clearly doesn't think so!      Andy Neil      04/09/12 02:41      
      The world isn't just a few companies      Per Westermark      04/09/12 06:47      
   the basic problem with free software is...      Erik Malund      04/10/12 08:33      
      Careful with the use of "Linux". Most things "Linux" aren't!      Per Westermark      04/10/12 08:53      
         I did refer to linux itself      Erik Malund      04/10/12 09:06      
            Wrong hw selected, or just big lack of platform knowledge?      Per Westermark      04/10/12 12:54      
               a port      Erik Malund      04/10/12 13:10      
                  Always danger with low-level code for platform      Per Westermark      04/10/12 14:32      
      True - but "paid-for" is not necessarily any better!      Andy Neil      04/10/12 13:31      
         when selecting any tool      Erik Malund      04/10/12 13:44      
      As Stallman said.....      Steve M. Taylor      04/11/12 15:59      
         free      Erik Malund      04/12/12 08:11      
            All about volume or already existing knowledge/experience      Per Westermark      04/12/12 10:37      
   Well...say what you like about me, and many people do.        Jez Smith      04/11/12 14:43      

Back to Subject List