|
I agree that it depends on the kind of the project and contracts.
In general, people who use "systems" want all features, even if some of them crashes and then must open the application again (considering they don't lose all their data).
For games it is exactly the opposite. I really prefer a never stopping game with less features than a game full of features that keeps crashing.
So, my real opinion is:
For systems, it is to be on time and have all the needed functionalities.
For games, it is to be bug free and have a great look and feel.
Do you want to create a new programming language?
Do you want to know how to create a virtual machine?
Are at least interested on how they work?
So, see my article: POLAR
|
|
|
|
|
I chose bug free even though we all know it is impossible to have an app that is bug free and the reality is that we all end up releasing something that has a few minor known bugs.
On Time - If it has a few glaring bugs, it's not finished so even if you ship it "On Time" I still consider it late because the reality is you are still working on that release after your "shipped" it.
All Planned Features - I'd rather ship and receive a piece of software short a few features than one that is buggy. If the software is buggy I'm unlikely to want to continue using it.
Polished - Polish can go a long way to making an app feel better to the average user. Just look at Apple's success. For the most part they aren't doing anything all that amazing, but their products are polished (especially the hardware). That being said, if you polish a turd, you're still holding a turd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
not each and every piece of code can be bug free, but should have to be stable release ....
|
|
|
|
|
Delivering in time and with all the main features is the core to me.
Some bugs are usually acceptable on the the first release as long as they're not critical.
Customers like punctuality and delivery.
Although they exist, I never worked on a project that didn't care about the delivery time.
Time-to-market is very important and can completly ruin the whole project chances of success if shipped one month later.
The trouble with this is to be able to elect the "main features" and don't want to have everything done.
Another important point is to define critical and non critical bugs.
So my 3 rules of thumb are:
1. Don't change what is already done. Leave that to the next version.
2. Do what's important first. Don't loose time with less important things.
3. Give severity points to bugs. Don't fix lower severity while higher exist.
I must admit I don't always follow these strictly  but I try to keep them in mind.
Cheers!
Alex
modified 14-Nov-11 19:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
All things considered, delivering the goods on time is, perhaps, the single most important requirement in any serious (software) project.
You may delay the delivery date once, maybe twice if your product is really unique, but if “delay” becomes your middle name, the client will seek for an alternative elsewhere.
Sure, the product won’t be perfect (it will ship with annoying bugs and the user interface will somehow look hideous to some of its users), but at least most of it works as expected and the client may proceed with its own agenda.
Then, under lower pressure, you have time to fix some of the bugs, brush-up the looks and feel and delight the client with extra-unexpected-features he didn’t know he needed.
|
|
|
|
|
you really want to say all of the above.
however, in the business world what really matters is introducing a product inside a target window that best maximizes the purchasing ability and pattern for your customer. there is a reason why you see products released only at certain times of the year.
bugs can fixed, new features can be done in subsequent releases and as the product continues with it's life span you can improve its look and appeal.
as if the facebook, twitter and message boards weren't enough - blogged
|
|
|
|
|
It is always my goal to provide bug free code regardless. Experience and good coding practices can mitigate a good number of them. V&V should bear out most of the oops and huhs.
So for me it was important to have all the planned features working, if the customer/client is not getting what they ask for then the goal of the project has not been met.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
S Houghtelin wrote: So for me it was important to have all the planned features working, if the
customer/client is not getting what they ask for then the goal of the project
has not been met.
What happened at the design phase?? How does one decide to ship an application that is not what was asked for??
Peter Wasser
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a manager, if you give me buggy and unmaintainable code on time, the chances are I will not give you more work. If you tell me a couple weeks before the deadline, you need more time to ensure less buggy code and more maintainable code, I will give you more work.
I have a guy who always is on time or delivers early, but his code is buggy. I have another guy who is usually a little late, but his code is rock solid. The buggy code is in QA too long and the deployment date always slips. The rock solid code, passes through QA with little delay and the deployment is never delayed.
I want the rock solid guy, you would not last with me.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 16-Nov-11 9:24am.
|
|
|
|
|
Amazingly there's no bacon option...
I'd say that if you'd ship it with bacon...no one will bother if it has bugs, doesn't contain all planned features, etc 
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--either way, you are right." — Henry Ford
"When I waste my time, I only use the best, Code Project...don't leave home without it." — Slacker007
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you should just replace the planned features list with bacon, then you could probably get it out faster too...
|
|
|
|
|
whatever the contract says.
|
|
|
|
|
The contract probably doesn't allow for bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
The contract probably doesn't allow for delays nor missing features either.
sign and execute, or don't sign.
also, bugs and maintenance/support contracts go hand in hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Granted I wouldn't mind shipping an app bug free, but let's be realistic here. If we (us developers) were to eliminate all bugs the deadline may be extended (depending upon the severity of the bugs). That's why I chose the last option to give the app the polished look and feel. The polished look and feel also encapsulates shipping an app without major bugs and leaving known minor bugs.
Also, with leaving known low-level (no show stopper) bugs in code that will be addressed hopefully in a short period of time with an update could make a customer feel that the app is always improving.
Just my thoughts.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
I agree... 
There's that happy medium, of course everyone wants to ship bug free software, that's just not all that realistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree to a certain extent.
I always believed that a polished look and feel would not seem very "polished" if there were major bugs. (Just my opinion).
However, you're analogy is something I very much agree with and it also applies with minor bugs too! If the minor bugs in an app feel like a root canal as you put it I can see customers (including myself) moving to another app.
Thanks for your 0.02.
|
|
|
|
|
I love to make it as bug free
No matter what the destination.The way we choose is Important.
|
|
|
|
|
and thats the real challenge.
// ♫ 99 little bugs in the code,
// 99 bugs in the code
// We fix a bug, compile it again
// 101 little bugs in the code ♫
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah its really challenge to developers
No matter what the destination.The way we choose is Important.
|
|
|
|
|
..it's got to be On Time, otherwise my clients are non-compliant - drop-dead date is not a moveable feast.
It’s not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it’s because we do not dare that things are difficult. ~Seneca
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
