Comments on: Software development has failed

By: fake rolex watches

fake rolex watches — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:33:00 +0000

As the business grows, rolex replicas has also jumped into an international brand. It is worth mentioning that,replica rolex watches is the ancestor of today's brand-oriented, in order to protect the quality and brand name will be printed on their products, the history of fashion in the world, is the first one first.rolex replica watches, fake rolex, fake rolex watches .fake omega watches replica omega watches tag heuer replica watches tag heuer watches.http://www.erowatch.com

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:02:18 +0000

Software development hasnt failed. Management has failed. The notion that creative work MUST be produced between 9am and 5pm with 1 hour lunch and 2 breaks has failed. The fact that know-nothings get promoted into management and management of humans, creative ones at that, doesnt call for watching over their shoulders, calling them on the phone every 20 minutes or instant messaging them constantly with some form of “Where are we at?”.

We dont want to go to meetings. We dont want to run instant messenger. We dont want to answer our phones and we dont want our managers sticking their heads into out pathetically horrible and wonderfully creative-inspiring workspace!

Do you want to give me that project and interrupt me a zillion times and have it late, over budget and full of bugs (as is the case today), or do you want to give me that assignment and allow me to code it so that in two weeks the product is done, bug free and under/within budget.

Oh… thats right… marketing wants to change things a hundred times a day. I forgot. Well, there’s ANOTHER problem……..marketers..

It will never change unless WE programmers change. Until WE demand respect like plumbers, doctors, lawyers, electricians and the like, we’ll be continually walked all over.

Ever try to change the “project” with one of those other professions? HAHAHAHA! Good effin luck to walk away not getting charged for every little change.

Its OUR fault.

By: Ryan Cromwell

Ryan Cromwell — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:34:05 +0000

I think we are still in the infancy of software development. It is still very much a creative process versus engineering process and those who appear to speak the language of software development still find it rather easy to acquire contracts/employment. The industry is consolidating as is natural and those who are actually good at what they do will survive and succeed.

Just look at the recent reports of the number of new CS enrollments in colleges and you will see that the intruige has diminished and those who actually are capable will rise to the top.

By: 7rans

7rans — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:58:58 +0000

Yes. Largely it has failed. But it’s is because our foundation is wrong. We can thank Unix and Microsoft for that.

By: philip andrew

philip andrew — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 04:54:53 +0000

You should really get to know failure well, then you can avoid it.

That comes with experience.

Note the facts, most companies fail over time, big or small, over 50% of software projects fail – face the facts, there is no reason you should start out expecting to succeed when you look at the actual facts.
You have a 50% chance of failure! can you face that fact? So why start out feeling you will succeed?

However, after a lot of experience you realise what the causes of the failures are and then you can address those causes … put out those fires before the project gets completely burn’t.

Really – get to know failure, its your best friend.

By: example

example — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 04:16:58 +0000

Lots of projects fail, and lots succeed. I suppose you could say more software projects fail then, say, construction. But people building buildings build the same ones over and over again.

But basically you’re just trolling, putting out an outlandish thesis in order to get lots of hits. Weak.

By: asdf

asdf — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:48:45 +0000

You have failed to be cogent in any way, shape or form.

By: tony

tony — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 06:22:06 +0000

This has already been tried with Cobol and it was an utter failure then and it’s a failure now and will be in the future. Ask *any* business major to sit down and write *one* line of Cobol or use a Domain specific language at all and you’ll get nothing but crap if it works at all. This scenario won’t change in the future because not everyone knows how to code. Jeez…

By: Cade Roux

Cade Roux — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:40:36 +0000

I agree and I disagree.

I agree it’s a failure, and I think it will be a failure for some time. However, I know that business people who know programming will not be the answer, because no matter how it’s taught in school, it’s still going to have the same intrinsic problems.

In the best case, for the business people who build good enough solutions, there will be good solutions that produce reliable results and they can maintain them, but when they leave, the system will not be able to be maintained by the next person. In the worst case, someone will build something and happily use the answer it spits out, despite it producing the wrong answer, and they will not even have made an effort to determine how to determine whether the system is operating correctly.

In general, programmers (and teams) who learn the business build better systems than business people who know or learn programming. I don’t think that’s going to change.

By: Brian St. Pierre

Brian St. Pierre — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:24:54 +0000

Software development hasn’t failed. You may say it sucks, but I can’t see where it has failed. There’s a lot of live software, doing a lot of stuff that wouldn’t be possible otherwise. A tiny portion of that software is great, some of it is good, a lot of it sucks but more or less does the job, and the rest is utter failure.

The failure distribution curve probably doesn’t look much different from the junk you can buy at your local big box retailer. I wouldn’t call toddlers’ sippy cups a failure as a concept, even though probably 1/2 of the cups we’ve ever bought have a tendency to leak.