hadeishi@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (mitsuharu hadeishi) (07/09/87)
Keywords: Well, I have nothing more to say about CP, but I would like to defend EA some more (I seem to be the only pro-EA guy on the net. Oh well. :-() In article <2381@hoptoad.uucp> farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: >1) By ignoring it. EA has very consistently refused to respond, > publicly and officially, to most, if not all, of the criticisms of > its problems, bugs, or annoyances. As I have mentioned in other messages, this is simply untrue. Reports of bugs, annoyances (particularly with the Deluxe series tools) and so forth were OFFICIALLY responded to. You must realize that it takes some time for these policy decisions to have an effect on products out there. Many people are still bashing EA for products that were released in the first year of the Amiga launch, before these issues could be addressed in actual products. Most of the original complaints (which were addressed to EA on the Well in the form of heavy flames) were addressed very rapidly internally, but it takes months for even a finished product to get out the door (packaging, manuals, etc.). >2) By dealing with it "on the sly" by giving fixed updates of their > products to those who complain about the bugs, while leaving the > rest of the public, especially those who are timid about such things, > unaware that fixes even exist. The fact is EA does provide official upgrades at long intervals. However, because EA is constantly improving and debugging its products, it is rather problematic to constantly be releasing official "upgrades" when such upgrades are available all the time. The question is, should EA just leave the bugs in and wait for an official rev of the product, or should they "quietly" rev the product NOW so "most" users will be spared the bug? The official revs take some time (note how long it was between Manx upgrades!) and the "unofficial" revs are coming all the time from the developers. People in the know can get the upgrades (just like the Manx beta testers) others must wait for the official revs. Perhaps EA should make it more clear when "quiet" upgrades occur, but it is not such an easy matter as you might think. >3) NOT by increasing QA procedures - recent EA products are just as > buggy as the early ones were, and the copy protect schemes just as > drastic. Incorrect. The products recently released that were buggy were the most complex products EA had ever developed, and also under the constraint of an ever-changing OS (from 1.1 to 1.2). They were just not prepared to deal with the bugs that came up. They ARE aware of the problem, however, and have been (since last December) in the process of setting up a full-blown professional QA department. Unfortunately too late for many of last year's products. The basic fact is most of them were microcomputer hackers until the Amiga came along (with some notable exceptions, like Dan Silva, who came from Xerox PARC, and others.) The company was simply not set up to do the kind of exhaustive QA necessary for the product reliability desired. But note that even Microsoft still has problems in this area; it is not because they want to release buggy products, despite your accusations, but because they don't know how to avoid it systematically. However, I was at the meeting in which Trip Hawkins announced the formation of a new, formalized QA department to alleviate these problems. Look for the effects of this to start being evident over the next year or so. -Mitsu
rms@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Roger M. Shimada) (07/11/87)
In article <2496@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: >In article <2381@hoptoad.uucp> farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: >>3) NOT by increasing QA procedures - recent EA products are just as >> buggy as the early ones were, and the copy protect schemes just as >> drastic. > > Incorrect. The products recently released that were buggy >were the most complex products EA had ever developed, and also under >the constraint of an ever-changing OS (from 1.1 to 1.2). They were >just not prepared to deal with the bugs that came up. They ARE >aware of the problem, however, and have been (since last December) >in the process of setting up a full-blown professional QA department. >Unfortunately too late for many of last year's products. ... A friend of mine just got Earl Weaver Baseball a week ago. (He got himself on a dealer's send-me-a-copy-as-soon-as-you-get-one list.) He runs Workbench 1.2 and has 2 meg on a Microbotics add on. It eventually crashes with the extended memory. I can't believe EA can have any real excuses for this. Between buggy software and loads of vaporware, the Amiga is sometimes a real pain. Roger M. Shimada UUCP:rms@MECC.MN.ORG,ihnp4!meccts!rms
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (07/11/87)
In article <2496@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: >However, I was at the meeting in which Trip >Hawkins announced the formation of a new, formalized QA department >to alleviate these problems. Look for the effects of this to >start being evident over the next year or so. > > -Mitsu Yeah, look for their entire bureaucracy machine to grind them to a screeching halt as they implement: STRUCTURED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN TECHNIQUES! Data flow diagrams, Structure Charts, Data Dictionaries, Pseudocode, Coding standards, Test Plans, Lab Notebooks, the whole steenking ball of wax. Total documentation and predictability. Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket! I'm afraid guys, that we're about to watch DPaint III go the way of Wordstar 2000. :-> Keith
nick@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Nick Flor) (07/14/87)
In article <1651@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: > >Yeah, look for their entire bureaucracy machine to grind them to a >screeching halt as they implement: > > STRUCTURED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN TECHNIQUES! > >Data flow diagrams, Structure Charts, Data Dictionaries, Pseudocode, >Coding standards, Test Plans, Lab Notebooks, the whole steenking >ball of wax. Total documentation and predictability. Yeah, that's >it, that's the ticket! It's this sort of idiotic mentality that prevents quality software from coming out. I am a proponent of structured analysis and design techniques. If more companies started using them, then we'd have a hell of a lot less bugs to contend with in the software we buy. Right now, we have hackers publishing a lot of the software for the Amiga using a bottom-up-do-what-is-easiest-first methodology. Please give me a break. This only works in the classroom. >:-> Didn't sound like you were kidding. >Keith and I can hear the screams with the knife, the jolt, the wring they must follow in our dreams carrying a twisted sting Nick -- + Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own, not necessarily my employers'. + + "What's going down in this world, | Nick V. Flor + + you got no idea. Believe me." | Hewlett Packard - San Diego Division + + "We came, we saw, we it's kicked *ss."| ..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick +
aegis@pnet02.CTS.COM (William Volk) (07/14/87)
Don't knock structured design. Our CAD products used it and it has made them
alot more reliable. You can over do it, but insisting on "black boxing" can
make life a little easier. Now where's my copy of C++ ?????
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, ihnp4}!crash!gryphon!pnet02!aegis
INET: aegis@pnet02.CTS.COMrichard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (07/16/87)
In article <880@hp-sdd.HP.COM> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >In article <1651@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >> >>Yeah, look for their entire bureaucracy machine to grind them to a >>screeching halt as they implement: >> >> STRUCTURED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN TECHNIQUES! >> >>Data flow diagrams, Structure Charts, Data Dictionaries, Pseudocode, >>Coding standards, Test Plans, Lab Notebooks, the whole steenking >>ball of wax. Total documentation and predictability. Yeah, that's >>it, that's the ticket! > >It's this sort of idiotic mentality that prevents quality software >from coming out. > >I am a proponent of structured analysis and design techniques. >If more companies started using them, then we'd have a hell >of a lot less bugs to contend with in the software we buy. >Right now, we have hackers publishing a lot of the software for >the Amiga using a bottom-up-do-what-is-easiest-first methodology. >Please give me a break. This only works in the classroom. > >>:-> >Didn't sound like you were kidding. > >>Keith > Give US a break Nick. Poor old Keith works for a company that USED to write software, but now they do structured design reviews and hav'nt produced a line of code in 2 years. Besides, Keith has built an audio digitizer, written software for it, written a audio playback thing, written an animation scripting program, etc. What have YOU written ? Or dont you write software ? Or is is still in the *DESIGN* stage ? All I've seen YOU do is bitch at other people on the net. Questioning Leo's motivations, indeed! :-) In all seriousness guys, a good hacker produces good code. All the structured design and analysis will not save an idiot. Pick what you like, use it, and dont bitch about somebody else's tools. It seems to me that all structured analysis does is prevents you from painting youself into a corner. Some people can do this in their heads. (of course some people can visualize 4D). The kind of little bugs you are complaing about are usually implementational quircks that no amount of design will prevent. -- Richard Sexton INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {akgua, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard
greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin) (07/16/87)
In article <880@hp-sdd.HP.COM> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >In article <1651@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >> >>Data flow diagrams, Structure Charts, Data Dictionaries, Pseudocode, >>Coding standards, Test Plans, Lab Notebooks, the whole steenking >>ball of wax. Total documentation and predictability. Yeah, that's >>it, that's the ticket! > >It's this sort of idiotic mentality that prevents quality software >from coming out. Oooh! A VALUE JUDGEMENT. > >I am a proponent of structured analysis and design techniques. >If more companies started using them, then we'd have a hell >of a lot less bugs to contend with in the software we buy. Not really. The sellers would have easier to maintain programs that would more than likely miss their market windows, though. >Right now, we have hackers publishing a lot of the software for >the Amiga using a bottom-up-do-what-is-easiest-first methodology. >Please give me a break. This only works in the classroom. "bottom-up" in the classroom gets you a bad grade. RealLife is different. The quality of a program is directly proportional to the quality of the people who designed and produced it. Structured methodology may well be useful for imposing discipline where it is required but it does not, by itself, insure a bug-free product (or for that matter that any product will result) just as non-adherence to "structure" dogma does not insure a "buggy" product. You've been had. I hope your value judgement of the merit of Keith's posting is not indicative of how you normally comport yourself in public. -- Greg Laskin "When everybody's talking and nobody's listening, how can we decide?" INTERNET: greg@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4}!crash!gryphon!greg UUCP: {philabs, scgvaxd}!cadovax!gryphon!greg
nick@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Nick Flor) (07/17/87)
>In article <962@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > >Besides, Keith has built an audio digitizer, written software for it, >written a audio playback thing, written an animation scripting program, >etc. What have YOU written ? Or dont you write software ? Or is is still >in the *DESIGN* stage ? > Gee, you mean Doyle took an A->D chip and interfaced it to the computer? Well give Doyle a hand. I wasn't flaming what he's done, just his ideas on structured design. As for what I've done.. I write firmware for our plotters -- graphics/IO. We sell thousands of plotters a month. So I ask you -- How much of my firmware is out there? As for something many people on the net have used, why don't you look at UltraRogue version 1.03. I wrote some of the code for that. In particular, the "summon familiar" code, stacking of multiple objects, the original new-magic system code, the original "pray" code. et al. However, so as not to incite Herb, Herb Chong wrote most of the code. I wrote an image creator/animation editor for the Amiga, and I asked for 25 responses before I souped it up and posted, but I only got about 15 responses and so I didn't post. I'm a selfish profit maximizing individual. I only do things if I expect to get something out of it. >All I've seen YOU do is bitch at other people on the net. >Questioning Leo's motivations, indeed! :-) That's because I admire his creativity. I realize it's difficult to sustain that level of creativity without some sort of reward. I just wanted to know what his rewards were. >In all seriousness guys, a good hacker produces good code. Bullsh*t. Prove this statement. First define a hacker. To me, a hacker is a person who adds to/perverts existing code for his own programs. (Code that he usually hasn't written). Someone who writes good code is a professional, not a hacker. >All the structured design and analysis will not save an idiot. It *is* set up to save the idiot. Do you even know anything about the structured design/analysis process? Part of the process involves going over your design THOROUGHLY with your project team. You should be able to catch all the bugs the user could potentially discover through normal use. Too many packages out there contain bugs that are discovered through straight forward exercise of the features or functions -- as opposed to pathological interference by buffoons. Structured design eliminates most of this. In large projects, the documentation that results from following the methodology not only facilitates the delegation of well defined tasks to different people but also makes it easier for future project teams to understand/fix/enhance/modify etc. the code reliably. >Pick what you like, use it, and dont bitch about somebody else's tools. I was bitching about his stupid attitude toward structured design. >It seems to me that all structured analysis does is prevents you from >painting youself into a corner. Some people can do this in their heads. It seems to me that you don't really understand the structured design concept. Look folks, I'm just sick to death of some of the sh*tty code that gets published. I'm not trying to flame anyone in particular, just immature attitudes towards software design. When we finally get off of our high chairs and acknowledge that bottom-up-do- what-comes-easy-first design just doesn't work for software of considerable size, everyone will be a lot better off. Thanks for listening. Nick -- + Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own, not necessarily my employers'. + + "What's going down in this world, | Nick V. Flor + + you got no idea. Believe me." | Hewlett Packard - San Diego Division + + "We came, we saw, we it's kicked *ss."| ..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick +
ins_adjb@jhunix.UUCP (Daniel Jay Barrett) (07/18/87)
In article <893@hp-sdd.HP.COM> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: >>In article <962@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >> >>Besides, Keith has built an audio digitizer, written software for it, > >Gee, you mean Doyle took an A->D chip and interfaced it to the computer? ... >Thanks for listening. >Nick No thanks. Please move these flame-ridden discussions to e-mail. --- Dan Barrett ins_adjb@jhunix.UUCP barrett@hopkins-eecs-bravo.arpa
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (07/20/87)
In article <893@hp-sdd.HP.COM> nick@hp-sdd.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: > >Gee, you mean Doyle took an A->D chip and interfaced it to the computer? Two of them. Stereo, remember ? :-) > >ideas on structured design. As for what I've done.. I write firmware >for our plotters -- graphics/IO. We sell thousands of plotters Does this mean the bugs in HP plotter code are *designed in* ? (another :-), why do you make me say these things ?) >I wrote an image creator/animation editor for the Amiga, and I asked for >25 responses before I souped it up and posted, but I only got about 15 >responses and so I didn't post. I'm a selfish profit maximizing individual. >I only do things if I expect to get something out of it. I'm not sure what you mean here. If you wrote one and waited for people to ask for it, that seems kind of silly. Now that vdeoscape is out, and Doyle's animation scripting program is in Beta test, there is a real need for a GOOD front end. Can you be of help here Nick ? >>In all seriousness guys, a good hacker produces good code. >Bullsh*t. Prove this statement. First define a hacker. >To me, a hacker is a person who adds to/perverts existing code for his I guess we have different definitions of hacker. I meant somebody that sits down at a screen and writes code. >Someone who writes good code is a professional, not a hacker. Uh, somebody that gets *paid* for his efforts is a professional. Sorry to quibble, but thats what my dictionary says. >>All the structured design and analysis will not save an idiot. > >It *is* set up to save the idiot. Do you even know anything about You missed a good line here: "Its saved ME lots of times". Oh well. >>Pick what you like, use it, and dont bitch about somebody else's tools. >I was bitching about his stupid attitude toward structured design. You may not agree with Keiths opinion, but he has reasons for it, and just because you don't agree with it does not make it stupid. >Look folks, I'm just sick to death of some of the sh*tty code that gets >published. I'm not trying to flame anyone in particular, just immature >attitudes towards software design. Funny, I've never run across ANY software that was so obviously bug free that it led me to exclaim "Gosh, they must have used structured design and analysis on this". Perhaps you can point one out to me. >When we finally get off of our high chairs and acknowledge that bottom-up-do- >what-comes-easy-first design just doesn't work for software of considerable >size, everyone will be a lot better off. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ Hmm, some people cant get dotty.c straight in their heads, while others can do ray tracers. 'Considerable size' is relative. -- Richard Sexton INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {akgua, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard