Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?

[aaeamdar]

Dear Chief Delphi Community,

Re-reading the rule book, I came across the following rule in the 2006 Manual, Section Five:

Originally Posted by Section_Five_Rulebook

<R71> Unaltered software modules developed during prior competitions may not be directly re-used. Just as designs for hardware COMPONENTS may be reused from one year to the next, software algorithms and designs may be reused. However, the specific lines of code must be customized for each robot each year.

This rule seems to be saying that you can't copy-paste sections of old code into your new robot's brain. My first question is, is that the way everyone else sees it? What do you think this rule means?

My second question is this: what constitutes violation of the spirit of the rule versus the letter of the rule, and is such a violation acceptable to *you*? It seems to me that you could follow the letter of this rule while easily sidestepping the spirit. In general, is it acceptable to dodge around a rule you simply don't like?

Thanks for your input,
Paul Dennis
Team 1719

[AdamHeard]

Well.

My team has used the same PID algorithm two years in a row. But, it was pretty much a standard one we got out of a book anyway. All the implementation and the gains were different, but that was still the same. I don't see this as violating the rules because the only way around it would be to intentionally changing the algorithm just so we can use it.

Also, code that we used from someone else may have been used twice. I think we may have unintentionally violated this rule with Kevin W's code, but I'm not sure if that counts.


Really, in most situations it wouldn't even be possible to simply copy and paste previous years' code.

[Alexander McGee]

I don't see how it should be seen as acceptable for anyone to "bend" the rules, even if you do "get away with it".

Following the rules goes hand in hand with GP, so the answer seems pretty simple to me.

New year = all new code.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Alexander McGee

I don't see how it should be seen as acceptable for anyone to "bend" the rules, even if you do "get away with it".

Following the rules goes hand in hand with GP, so the answer seems pretty simple to me.

New year = all new code.

"Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are."
-Franklin D. Roosevelt

The rules aren't always right. Respect the intent, not the letter. Etc. etc.

[Donut]

I see this as saying you can't copy paste entire control systems from a previous year, not a section (since copying a section and then adding new stuff to it would be classified as "altering" it in my opinion).

If you were to say using any previous year's code was against the rules, that would mean you really couldn't even use past years as reference, since you would invariably end up having at least 1 line in common with it. I think they just want you to figure out how the program works from the past and add your own style to it, rather than importing whole files for drivetrain, arm control, etc.

[Gdeaver]

I thought cut and paste programing was a standard practice. Just let the lawyers haggle over the Intellectual Property stuff.

[CircularLogic]

This rule is written with no possible way to enforce it, so technical legal obligation are meaningless in this argument.

It seems that the spirit of the rule is to encourage learning and development by writing fresh software every year instead of having one good programmer write code that you can pretty much use every year.


My answer to the last question of "is it acceptable to dodge a rule you simply dont like" is yes. I do believe that too many people are into the cult of FIRST rather than the actual issue of the things they are supposed to teach, i.e. technical expertise, programming expertise, or actual robotics. Following this type of rule to the letter represents being too caught up with the organization of FIRST and not necessarily what it teaches.

Rule violations will always happen, unitentional and intentional. Things break, changes in the pit almost always leave with some type of violations, and some teams have to knowingly use a diffent gauge wire when they only have 3 minutes to fix it, but that not the point. The point of this program is not to pay incredible attention and respect the infallibility of FIRST, but to learn from it. When people are too caught up in the cult of FIRST, I feel that we miss the important parts of the program as in the actual robotics part of it.




Anyway, that was kind of off topic, but it is the observations of a person who was always into the team and into the robotics, but never really a huge fan of the FIRST cult.

p.s. I always copy and paste lines of code. Its quite annoying to have to write entire drive algorithms over again when you have the same drive train.

[Bharat Nain]

Originally Posted by CircularLogic

This rule is written with no possible way to enforce it, so technical legal obligation are meaningless in this argument.

It seems that the spirit of the rule is to encourage learning and development by writing fresh software every year instead of having one good programmer write code that you can pretty much use every year.

p.s. I always copy and paste lines of code. Its quite annoying to have to write entire drive algorithms over again when you have the same drive train.

I can agree with that one. Software engineering isnt exactly the same thing as hardware engineering. I also think its kind of hard to use the exact same code for every years robot so the rule is self surviving. Although, if you're talking about simply mapping inputs to ports which is even done in the default code, copying and pasting isnt really a big deal.

I think the rule is geared towards more complex software. Maybe a personal software for camera? I don't know. The rule doesnt entirely make sense right now but maybe it will in the future.

[Joel J]

I think the rule is terrible, and the reasoning given for its creation is nice to listen to, but reaches a flawed conclusion.



Tangent about rules: the worst thing (in my opinion) about rules that have to be followed is the effect they have when they steer you to the edge of a cliff, and then tell you that you have to jump off. Absolutely painful to endure. This software reuse rule isn't that bad, but with all the bad rules being enforced in my daily life, this tangent was a must-take for me.

If you have old useful code that you will have to rewrite from scratch, then please be careful! Its really easy to make a mistake..

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by CircularLogic

My answer to the last question of "is it acceptable to dodge a rule you simply dont like" is yes. I do believe that too many people are into the cult of FIRST ...When people are too caught up in the cult of FIRST, I feel that we miss the important parts of the program as in the actual robotics part of it.

Your answer reminds me of what an acquaintance said when asked what was his definition of a cult: "A cult is any religious group I don't like."

I see a serious problem with your answer, however. When people "dodge" a rule they "simply don't like," the results are often damaging to society. Political scandals, felonies, skyrocketing teen pregnancy rates, automobile fatalities--these are often consequences of people breaking rules they "simply don't like." Calling the party that sets the rules a "cult" (or any other label) does not justify breaking the rules--particularly if you participate in that group voluntarily. The only ethical grounds for deliberately breaking a rule is when the rule violates a higher standard.

People with long experience in FIRST know that sometimes the rules could be more clearly written, and there is often room for interpretation. But breaking rules merely for personal convenience is more than a failure in exercising Gracious Professionalism--it is an attitude that can lead to anarchy, a society in chaos.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by KarenH

I see a serious problem with your answer, however. When people "dodge" a rule they "simply don't like," the results are often damaging to society. Political scandals, felonies, skyrocketing teen pregnancy rates, automobile fatalities--these are often consequences of people breaking rules they "simply don't like."

Karen,

There's a difference between breaking a rule that you see as simply an inconvenience and breaking a rule that you know you shouldn't break. For example, we all know it's wrong to steal from people - massive violation of this rule would result in the anarchy you describe. But how would breaking this rule lead to anarchy?

Confused

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

There's a difference between breaking a rule that you see as simply an inconvenience and breaking a rule that you know you shouldn't break. For example, we all know it's wrong to steal from people - massive violation of this rule would result in the anarchy you describe. But how would breaking this rule lead to anarchy?

Confused

Read all of my post. It's the ATTITUDE that leads to anarchy. When people make their own choices between what is an "inconvenience" and what they "shouldn't break," they place themselves above the law. They decide which laws they will follow. Laws become meaningless. This is the basis of anarchy.

If it's an inconvenience to follow a FIRST rule, and a mentor tells the team to ignore the rule merely because it's inconvenient, then logically what will prevent that mentor or those students from deciding it's an inconvenience to follow school rules against cheating, local laws against speeding, or state laws against shoplifting? And that therefore, it's OK to ignore those rules?

For example, some people think it's inconvenient to not have enough money, so they decide it's OK to enter someone else's house or car and take whatever they find. And they often don't think there's anything wrong with doing so, unless they get caught!

The values mentors and teachers convey to students are critical. If adult leaders give teenagers ANY justification for breaking rules, even stupid rules, many teens will take that little "permission" and run away with it. Then, when they get into trouble, they'll blame the adults who said it's OK to break the rules. If they can break one rule, why not break the other rules?

Back to the rule under discussion-- Did anyone ask for clarification of this rule in the Q&A?

[chris31]

Well think of it this way. No code is ever finished. Atleast it isnt in my mind. Every peice of code could use a new feature, tweak, or performance boost. All you need to do is modify the code and it no longer breaks the rule. Your doing yourself a favor by having better code due to this rule.

[aaeamdar]

Originally Posted by KarenH

Read all of my post. It's the ATTITUDE that leads to anarchy. When people make their own choices between what is an "inconvenience" and what they "shouldn't break," they place themselves above the law. They decide which laws they will follow.

Karen, your later reference to speeding brings up an interesting comparison. Let's say that Don the driver is driving along on the highway. The posted speed limit is 60 mph, but the average speed of the cars on the highway seems to be about 70 mph, with several drivers going as fast as 80 mph. Is it better for Don to "go with the flow" and move along at 70 mph, or is it better for him to go 55-60 mph as the speed limit states?

The answer is that Don is a safer driver at 70 mph (even if this is faster than the speed he would like to go) than he is at 60 mph. Anyone with driving experience knows that a driver going along at a significantly slower pace can cause problems for him/herself and also other drivers.

We make judgements about rules all the time, and we choose to follow them or not based on those judgements. In this case, if a FIRST rules official were to come on this thread and say that simply re-typing (in other words typing while looking at the original code) is the way to follow this rule, I would have absolutely no bad feelings about ignoring such a busywork rule. Please tell me how this would lead to anarchy.

Originally Posted by Steve W

I am convinced that rewriting software is now bad and copy and paste is good (tongue in cheek). Now the fact that I am a builder I can use the same reasoning for using a new drive base that our students have spent all summer and fall fixing and building.

Steve, you should re-read Dave Flowerday's postings. I think they shed some light on why these comparisons work. I'll admit that since the beginning of the discussion, I've felt that they aren't as valid as many people seem to think, but I never put words to it. Dave has made a much more persuasive case for it than I could have.

Paul

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

Steve, you should re-read Dave Flowerday's postings....

Just so we're clear, while I have stated strong opinions about this rule, I do not feel that you can simply ignore a rule if you don't like it, as it appears you are suggesting. The rules are what they are and we have to follow them, but it doesn't mean we have to like them and it doesn't mean we can't critique them and discuss them in an effort to improve the situation.

To be blunt, I want to make it clear that my opinion on this rule does not translate into support for your argument.

I would have absolutely no bad feelings about ignoring such a busywork rule.

I think you will find that this attitude will not serve you well in life. It's OK to question rules, but you should work within the bounds of the system to change them, rather than flagrantly disregarding them simply because you don't like them. Questioning authority in certain circumstances can be a good thing, when it is done in a civil manner using proper channels. What you seem to be advocating here however is simply ignoring authority. Trust me, when you get a little older you will find that this doesn't work well. Try something like that at an engineering job and you very likely could get fired, or get someone hurt (ignoring safety standards, for example), or cost someone a lot of money (by getting sued, etc.). Definitely not something to aspire to.