[gblake]

Originally Posted by faust1706

Because it is the general consensus it seems. I did expect some backlash. While robots vary greatly year after year, the software generally does not. I forget where I read this, but it basically said that software is not considered good if it isn't able to adapt to an unforeseen use of it.

Imaging if google crashed when you tried to find a route from london to toyko,

Making adaptive code is something that needs to be a goal from the start, not an after thought.

How about we all just real Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and call it a day in regards to a conversation of quality?

Whether or not a general impression about low-quality exists, what is probably more important to think about is whether or not it is accurate.

The notion of adapting to unforeseen use is interesting to ponder. What does it have to do with software that isn't required to adapt to unforeseen circumstances? In that circumstance creating adaptable software is a waste of resources.

I read that book long ago. No need to repeat that.

Instead why don't we discuss what our software is supposed to do and be *before* we decide that it is a failure. The software development industry is no stranger to the importance of putting a good specification in place early.

I understand your thesis; but I don't think you have proven it. Until you can put together a good argument that the majority of FRC Software doesn't satisfy teams' requirements, put me in the camp that both says there is always room for improvement, and says that a general indictment is unwarranted.