|
645.5*
* Dewey Decimal Classification 645.5: Household Furnishings / Lighting Fixtures
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Fight complaint unknown cover (8)
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Fight WAR
complaint RANT
unknown Y cover
WARRANTY
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
You always solve these when I blink! 
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
Stop.
Blinking.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You do like to win on Friday 
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Oh elephant! It's Friday already? What happened to the week? 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
SO we have all read specs, documents that define data packets, full of flags and things, that describe complex behaviour, subtle things, clever things.
And have you ever looked at code, or products that supposedly implement the spec, and arent all these complex, fiddly little values, all set to 0, or some default, or ignored completely, and just the basics of the spec implemented?
I see it every single time I dig into this kind of thing.
I think it is because the spec writers want to make it complete, and because of their depth of knowledge, understand what they are thinking.
The poor sod who has to write code hasn't got ten years to devote to studying the technology, he has to write code that works, and has a month to do it.
So he just says 'f*** it, ignore that, zero will do here, thats enough' and hey presto, it works well enough to sell.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: SO we have all read specs, documents that define data packets, full of flags and things, that describe complex behaviour, subtle things, clever things.
SO not all of get any specs to begin with. If you are not a psychic or at least know what to do when someone who is utterly incapable of thinking up specs handwaves the whole thing onto your desk, then get lost.
My sadistic way of punishing them for that was to do whatever I wanted and when they came to complain, I just asked them which one of their specifications was not met.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not talking about 'vague requests from management' but about those complex specs that come from organisations like USB, 3GPP, RTCM and so on. Specs where there is too MUCH detail.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no such thing as too much detail. You can't possibly know what someone will be looking for. The real problem is keeping the documentation and its subject in sync, both ways.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you completely missing the point of what I wrote on purpose?
|
|
|
|
|
No, not at all. Have you never had the situation that someone else was documenting according to specifications while you were struggling to get the whole thing to work and meet the deadline?
The guy who writes the code does not cut corners because he feels like it. It's the usual case of having something that works reasonably well until the deadline is reached. No time to inform the guy who writes the documentation.
The writer also is busy enough to write down all that stuff in a clear and complete way. He does not want to change too much, as he always got enough left to write about. He just sticks to the specs and probably is not even aware of the changes that have accumulated.
After the deadline both move on to their next assignments and never get the time to clean up. A few versions down the line the documentation will differ from the implementation in many places, but have you ever heard a boss say that the documentation needs to be redone?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
No, and this is a different situation because I am talking about a programmer being either lazy or incapable of understanding a complex specification.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but I doubt that in most cases. Most of the time I think it's unintentional and not malice.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Malice?
No, that isnt the definition of malice, this is about a spec being over the top, overkill, and the developer not wanting to understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
Undermining the team's work and its results is not malicious? There has been a time when I did not rip someone's head off when he was not able to complete a job and needed assistance, at least as long as he spoke up. For secretly doing his own thing I would have had him hanging by his (censored).
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
modified 7-Sep-18 6:34am.
|
|
|
|
|
Malice is intentional. If it were he would be sacked immediately!
Stupidity cant be helped though.
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding implementing according to specs: In the 1960s, a Norwegian research institute designed and built by hand a 16-bit minicomputer (years before minis became mainstream). This prototype was then industrialized by two companies: One was a startup with young excited engineers having hear of something called 'documentation' without really knowing the concept.
The other was a 150 year old manufacturing company with well established procedures for all kinds of paperwork. Before production had started, 500 copies of the complete documentation was ready for shipping with the computers. A slight problem was revealed: The guy writing the technical reference manual had misinterpreted the use of the base register (i.e. stack pointer), describing the calculation of the effective address which differed from the prototype (the index register was applied before the base register, opposite of the intended).
Printing 500 reference manuals was expensive in those days. Effective address calculation is so essential that a small errata slip wouldn't do (and would look somewhat unprofessional). Rather than throwing away 500 manuals, they decided to build the machine as documented, rather than like the prototype.
So, in the 1970s, there were two minimachine series from two Norwegian companies with identical instruction sets and addressing modes - except when both base and index registers were involved: Then the effective addess would differ. So they couldn't use each other's binary software. Even though the machines were nearly identical, they ended up taking completely non-overlapping market segments: One was dominating the market for welding machines, huge pen plotters and similar industrial applications; the ohter one took a major share of database applications, office automation etc. Maybe if they had been pefectly identical that the competition would have been negative to both of them. Maybe building according to specs was a good idea after all 
|
|
|
|
|
Spec must be implemented as capable by device. There is no need to implement a set of, for example, response flags that detail the state of the storage memory if the device does not have storage capability in the first place. It's enough just to stick them to the "all fine, nothing to see here" set of values.
The same goes for a lot of seldomly used features, like certain timeouts, watchdogs...
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK, a domain-specialist never gets trained in what a spec is; so it must be a developer who writes them.
Munchies_Matt wrote: I think it is because the spec writers want to make it complete, and because of their depth of knowledge, understand what they are thinking.
Where only a developer can be a spec-writer; otherwise you'll get a lot of data and facts that are irrelevant to the project.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: There are not written by developers. Specifications[^]
So you found one exception, and proclaim it the way things work.
Show me a single formal education where you learn wat version-control is and how to write technical and functional specs
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
WTF?
Look, specs like that are not written by developers?
USB spec?
RTCM?
They are written by engineers FFS!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
