|
V. wrote: Clear dirty thoughts, first
I can't.
Alberto Brandolini: The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
|
|
|
|
|
You beat me to it.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Spencer Elden[^] - The early years.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote: *** Clear dirty thoughts, first ***
Impossible!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
The other guys
"Age wrinkles the body. Quitting wrinkles the soul."
-Douglas MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
We could do this, if we invest and do it right then it will be of great benefit to the company.
It's a business critical system, we need it up, we need it available, we need it working as well as it possibly can, it will be fully monitored so that we know problems are happening before they do, the right people will be notified.
Let's get the licenses, let's get the machines, let's get the expert advice, and let's do this right.
It's going to cost this much.
Great, let's get this submitted, let's do this, this is a good idea.
But do we really need this bit?
And can't you work that out yourself?
And we don't currently have this so can we cope without it?
And couldn't we reuse this?
And what if we see how we do without this bit?
And if they just show you one thing then you can't do the rest on your own?
And. And. And.
Congratulations, we've delivered a barely adequate solution that someone needs to hand crank on an almost daily basis.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't that the Minimum Viable Product approach?
|
|
|
|
|
No.
It is depressing penny pinching wank that occurs when companies are run by accountants rather than humans.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
chriselst wrote: It is depressing penny pinching wank that occurs when companies are run by accountants
And that is what has created the economic climate we are in: accountants don't look to the long term, it's all immediate gratification.
Which means "outsource the manufacturing - we'll save 50p a unit!", and then wondering why the home market has collapsed (it's because nobody has a job any more, so they can't buy your products)
Which means "get the money from them now - we'll sort it out later", and then wondering why they get slapped with billions in PPI claims.
Which means ... you get the idea.
Accountants have a place; they are needed. But they shouldn't make the rules. And neither should the banks.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Accountants have a place
At the bottom of the corporate food chain, just after short-order chefs.
|
|
|
|
|
you mean somewhere between a roustie [^]and a scaff [^] as they tend to be a scaff[^]...but we wont mention the other definition that involves animals.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Accountants have a place; they are needed.
Don't tell @DalekDave that ffs  he will think he is indispensable 
|
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: And neither should the banks, or government.
FTFY
|
|
|
|
|
Back in the good old days when we distributed our (expensive, leased with a maintenance agreement) software on floppy disks (it was taking up to 12 disks before we switched to the new-fangled CDs) we used to buy disks from a well known brand name and only occasionally got a failure ...which resulted in us having to send out a replacement set by expensive overnight mailing or personal delivery for more local clients. We got through a lot of disks as we patched and updated our software about every three months on average.
Our company accountant was shocked by the cost of these disks and decided to order us some no-name brand in bulk (she ordered five years supply at one go), cutting the cost by half. The incidence of failure went from 1 in 400 to 75 in 400 which meant that we basically had to send two copies of each disk set to make sure the client got one usable set - and then we still had to overnight replacement disks like crazy because of the high failure rate. The overall cost of the floppies tripled since the five-year supply was mostly used up in a single quarterly update! The mailing costs were huge, plus we had to spend the extra time duplicating the disks and were considering having to buy another duplicator and hiring an intern just to keep up. Instead, we took the remaining no-name disks and stored them in the accountants office, on the end of her desk, as a reminder - and went back to our usual supplier.
The whole "cost-saving" decision costs us thousands of dollars in wasted disks, wasted time, wasted mailings and untold costs in reputation as out clients were pi**ed off at their wasted time and the hassle and delays.
Anyone want to buy some floppy disks (no guarantee of actual function)?
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
modified 14-Nov-14 10:47am.
|
|
|
|
|
Forogar wrote: The whole "cost-saving" decision costs us thousands of dollars
... And gave her more work, as more beans had to be moved around!
Mission accomplished!
Anyway, can't stop to chat. Gotta create two more bugs to fix later, before I quit for the day.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
chriselst wrote: we've delivered a barely adequate solution that someone needs to hand crank on an almost daily basis.
Welcome to dollar-store software development, whre quantity is more important than quality.
|
|
|
|
|
Going through this with one of my long-time clients. Worked with them for over 5 years, and they finally approached me to give a quote on replacing their existing back-end system.
After delivering the quote, they basically said they couldn't afford that. Period. What were they thinking? Then they tried to "sneak in" bits and pieces of the quote under the service-level agreement as "bug fixes"...
What gets me the most is that they didn't even try to negotiate on any part of the quote. I am sure we could have hammered things out, staged out the delivery over a few years.
At the same time they had some small projects done by co-op students from the local technical institute, and they are totally what you would expect from students. Yet I have probably spent more time getting these projects integrated into their systems and fixing the myriad of bugs in each of them, than it would have taken me just to write these again from scratch.
Such is the life of a contract developer/consultant... 
|
|
|
|
|
I think this vest I bought in an army surplus store is bullet proof - why don't you shoot me so we can find out![^]
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
---
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
|
|
|
|
|
Stupidity on both parts.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
|
As a result of recent discussions on how QA should be handled, Members avoid reporting questions there. I observe QA closely after that and felt, quality of Questions is going down rapidly. Thought was to be lenient to OP if he is new to this site,first time poster etc.
Now the situation is, posts are not getting reported (Intension is, once the question is closed OP will feel that there was something wrong with the question and he should improve it. He has option to post another,better question).
I see a horrible QA in upcoming days if this continues. It is ok to advice OP on how to post a good question,but if we will start answering meaning less questions than there won't be need of 'Red Flag' at all and OP will never try anything because he knows some or the other way there is someone who will do something for him.Further,he will never learn how to get help. I can see many questions are not at all according to CP guidelines.
e.g. difference betwwen store procedure and function[^]. OP is new to CP, should we ignore this post? Is it according to CP guidelines?
So, what should be done in order to overcome this issue.
1) Close QA completely?
2) Ignore such questions?
3) Report question and forget about it?
4) Any other suggestions which can really improve its quality.
Let's have some fruitful debate here.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
show a "nag" screen for verification?
==========================================================
Do you think this post is according to the QA guidelines?
[repeat these guidelines here]
[Yes, post it] [Oops, I'll correct before posting]
==========================================================
The nag screen disappears when you have a certain reputation on the site.
Just a thought.
On another note, what annoys me often is when you give someone a comment (not an answer) and ask them to improve the question, they will never do this, but rather reply to the comment itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Based on your current personal interpretation of the "reality" in QA, you see a crisis; obviously, this disturbs you, or you wouldn't be choosing to post this on the Lounge. Is the Lounge really the appropriate place on CP for this type of post ?
I am more concerned about your happiness than I am concerned about QA: you are a highly valued contributor to CodeProject, as your fine reputation clearly shows.
«At the still point of the turning world. Neither flesh nor fleshless;
Neither from nor towards; at the still point, there the dance is
...
Neither ascent nor decline. Except for the point, the still point,
There would be no dance, and there is only the dance»
T.S. Elliot, The Four Quartets: "Burnt Norton"/xml>
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
