[prog] State of software engineering profession

[Jimen Ching]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2003, Jenn Vesperman wrote:
>How can implementation be done on an assembly line?

Again, an assembly line is just automation.  If software implementation
can be automated, then that can be considered a crude form of an assembly
line.

>My position is that software implementation IS design, down to finer and
>finer amounts of detail.

I agree that there are design elements in implementation.  But I
differentiate between a design step and an implementation step in the
development of a software application.  Basically, there are different
levels of design.

>On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 21:14, Jimen Ching wrote:
>> To avoid any confusion.  Let me elaborate what I mean.  Because of this
>> 'show us the code' mentality, the programmer is implying that it is ok to
>> skip the design phase.
>Ok. Here's where I jump to my feet and say 'What the hell are you
>talking about?'
>
>'show us the code' means 'produce something, and we'll listen'. That can
>be a well-thought-through design.

I don't think so.  At least not in the free/open source software world.
"Show us the code" usually means send in a patch.  The word 'code' has a
very specific meaning in this world.  Of course, whether a 'plan' is
needed depends on the feature being added.  If the feature is simple, the
plan could be as easy as asking 'would this feature be useful?' But with
more complex features, or features that might change entire sub-systems,
then a more well thought-out plan is in order.

By asking for patches, these people are saying they don't want to discuss
the 'plan'.  They just want an implementation and review it instead.  I
guess because you equate implementation and design, the patch would be the
same as the plan.  So there are two layers of disagreement here.  I don't
think it is worth discussing the second disagreement, when the first one
is actually more fundamental.

--jc
-- 
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)      jching at flex.com     wh6brr at uhm.ampr.org