|
Re: On the quality and complexity of software within FRC
I am surprised by how few people have challenged the OP's assertion that I'll paraphrase as "most FRC software stinks"; and by how many respondents seem to embrace that assessment.
It is completely impossible to make a judgment like that without knowing what the software is required/expected to do.
You can easily make a case for McCall's criteria or other rather abstract notions of what is/isn't high-quality software being completely irrelevant if the software is satisfying all requirements placed on it.
McCall, et al published their important work to take a shot at being able evaluate software written for use in a certain general context. However, outside of that context, other criteria often apply.
First agree on what you want a given collection of software to do and be. Then have a proper conversation about quality. Don't put the cart before the horse. Don't let the tail wag the dog.
Blake
__________________
Blake Ross, For emailing me, in the verizon.net domain, I am blake
VRC Team Mentor, FTC volunteer, 5th Gear Developer, Husband, Father, Triangle Fraternity Alumnus (ky 76), U Ky BSEE, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Kentucky Colonel
Words/phrases  I avoid: basis, mitigate, leveraging, transitioning, impact (instead of affect/effect), facilitate, programmatic, problematic, issue (instead of problem), latency (instead of delay), dependency (instead of prerequisite), connectivity, usage & utilize (instead of use), downed, functionality, functional, power on, descore, alumni (instead of alumnus/alumna), the enterprise, methodology, nomenclature, form factor (instead of size or shape), competency, modality, provided(with), provision(ing), irregardless/irrespective, signage, colorized, pulsating, ideate
Last edited by gblake : 13-06-2015 at 01:08.
|