3 ms·
Of course, that assumes you are actually permitted to change the process. The project I'm working on has the constraint that while we are allowed to write less-
by joshwa 18y ago
Of course, that assumes you are actually permitted to change the process. The project I'm working on has the constraint that while we are allowed to write less-buggy software that catpures the existing process more effectively, we are not allowed to propose changes to the existing process (which evolved around the existing cruddy software-- 10 years of accumulated process and "feature" cruft, now cast in carbonite).
Corporations sometimes have a funny definition of "risk." Sometimes, Risk(changing to a sane process) < Risk(reproducing unnecessary complexity of existing process).
- stcredzero 18y agoTrue story: A friend of mine wrote software for NASA. There was an old control system for something that had as its interface a 9 key keypad a numeric readout and something like an enter key. The system was modernized, and its software was ported to Unix workstations. However, to keep it compatible with the operations manuals, the new GUI interface just simulated the keypad and numeric readout. (This is not software that my friend wrote. He ported the "numerical integrator" program used to track the Space Shuttle in orbit and calculate abort trajectories during launch. And yes, he showed me the program with the keypad! Another thing: as I was walking around at JSC, I saw a "Unix for Dummies" book back there!)