annual "crap-for-brains software" posting

annual "crap-for-brains software" posting

[SAHARBAUGH]

Ted Holden writes:
Having to spend ten times the going rate in both money and time for everything
you ever do will prevent you from doing that.  That's a hell of a good reason
for deep-sixing Ada.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

  Well I guess its time for my annual "crap-for-brains software" posting
again.  Each of the many times each workday that the commercial
software in my office fails I think of these postings that scream
"I want cheap software like Microsoft etc. produce".  You may recall
that I have labeled commercial software "crap-for-brains", "What-you-
see-ain't-what-you-get" etc.  Let me recall last week's highlights:
1. Powerpoint shows a vugraph on the screen with the graphic just
where we want it.  It prints it out at least 4 inches down and 2 inches
to the right on the paper copy.  No fixing it, the slide had to be
deleted and redone.
2. McSchedule shows schedule bar fill areas as drawn, solid for
work completed and cross hatched for a class of future activities.
The printed copy shows all solid, one hour before meeting with
customer.
3. Tried some demo software on a PC with windows.  Inserted
diskette in B drive and selected icon to execute a file on that
diskette. ( i don't know the right words here, i'm primarily a
macintosh point and shoot person).  Windows went thru all the
expected moves and then asked me to type in the filename that
i wanted to execute (which i could have done in DOS without 
all that mousing.  The 3 of us present all laughed out loud at
the same time.  Later using windows I wanted to alter a filename
in a window and instead of backspacing it just erased the entire
filename.  Apparently the philosophy of requiring the user to
memorize filenames lives on.
4. The latest powerpont is a cpu hog.  To switch from title
list to slide view and back seems to take on the order of
the expononential of the number of slides.  I suspect that
the title list is built fresh each time using a bubble sort.
We are collecting money to send a copy of Knuth's Sorting
and Searching to the autheors.  In general the software folks
are consuming the increases in cpu power at an alarming
rate, adding fluffy functionality and reducing robustness.

I could go on and on (and often do).  I have not mentioned
the numerous "crashes" where the software "unexpectedly
quits".

So, the bottom line is that software that works well enough to
defend our country costs ten times as much as software that works
well enough for office work.  That's the way it is.  

When will it change? In my opinion not until we all stop sending
checks for upgrades to the richest man in the country.  When
we demand software that works for our offices and homes
then the richest man in the country may consider doing some
engineering, design, test etc. and using a programming
language with a lot of built-in checking like (well you know
what language I mean).
sam harbaugh SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU

Re: annual "crap-for-brains software" posting

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.ed]

In article <9305111124.AA08521@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU writes:

>4. The latest powerpont is a cpu hog.  To switch from title
>list to slide view and back seems to take on the order of
>the expononential of the number of slides.  I suspect that
>the title list is built fresh each time using a bubble sort.
>We are collecting money to send a copy of Knuth's Sorting
>and Searching to the autheors.  In general the software folks
>are consuming the increases in cpu power at an alarming
>rate, adding fluffy functionality and reducing robustness.

Or, as I once put it: the ability of hardware engineers to enhance
is far exceeded by the ability of software engineers to degrade

Re: annual "crap-for-brains software" posting

[Wes Groleau X7574]

In article <9305111124.AA08521@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU writes:
>So, the bottom line is that software that works well enough to
>defend our country costs ten times as much as software that works
>well enough for office work.  That's the way it is.  

Correction:

So, the bottom line is that software that works well enough to
defend our country costs ten times as much as software that works
almost well enough for office work.  That's the way it is.  

Re: annual "crap-for-brains software" posting

[Michael Feldman]

In article <C6x541.IxH@crdnns.crd.ge.com> groleau@e7sa.crd.ge.com (Wes Groleau 
X7574) writes:
>In article <9305111124.AA08521@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU writes
:
>>So, the bottom line is that software that works well enough to
>>defend our country costs ten times as much as software that works
>>well enough for office work.  That's the way it is.  
>
>Correction:
>
>So, the bottom line is that software that works well enough to
>defend our country costs ten times as much as software that works
>almost well enough for office work.  That's the way it is.  

So is that why people in the know call it "Word Nearly"?

Mike Feldman

Re: annual "crap-for-brains software" posting

[Kenneth Nelson]

In article <C6x541.IxH@crdnns.crd.ge.com> groleau@e7sa.crd.ge.com (Wes Groleau 
X7574) writes:
>In article <9305111124.AA08521@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU writes
:
>>So, the bottom line is that software that works well enough to
>>defend our country costs ten times as much as software that works
>>well enough for office work.  That's the way it is.  
>
>Correction:
>
>So, the bottom line is that software that works well enough to
>defend our country costs ten times as much as software that works
>almost well enough for office work.  That's the way it is.  

Right.  The last 10% of the effort to go from "almost" working to
working is 90% of the work.  Also, today's miltary software will still
be in the field long after dozens of MS products come and go.


Ken

P.S.  Survey says: 4 of 5 dead soldiers/airmen/sailors prefer working
software to "almost" working software.  :-)

Re: annual "crap-for-brains software" posting

[cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.]

In <9305111124.AA08521@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU writes:

>  Well I guess its time for my annual "crap-for-brains software" posting
>again.  
>3. Tried some demo software on a PC with windows.  Inserted
>diskette in B drive and selected icon to execute a file on that
>diskette. ( i don't know the right words here, i'm primarily a
>macintosh point and shoot person).  Windows went thru all the
>expected moves and then asked me to type in the filename that
>i wanted to execute (which i could have done in DOS without 
>all that mousing.  The 3 of us present all laughed out loud at
>the same time.  

Three of you present, and none of you knew how to use the product,
apparently.  Now, I dislike much of the Windows interface paradigm,
but I don't think that's an excuse for ignorance paraded as a
demonstration of bad software.  Next time you want to execute a file
on a drive, *open the File Manager*.  In the File Manager, click on
the file that you want to run.  It runs.  Presto.  Incredibly
difficult, no doubt.

>Later using windows I wanted to alter a filename
>in a window and instead of backspacing it just erased the entire
>filename.  Apparently the philosophy of requiring the user to
>memorize filenames lives on.

Apparently, the philosophy of never reading the documentation lives
on.  The filename was shaded when you hit the backspace key, wasn't
it?  That makes backspace act as 'delete shaded area'.  Once again,
user ignorance is blamed on the software.  Next time, use the arrow
keys to move around or hit the 'end' key to move the cursor to the end
of the filename and cancel the block select.

Following this philosophy, Ada is the *worst* language because you
have to know so much in order to start producing software in it.  Are
you writing Ada without ever having read anything about the language
at all?  This seems to be your problem with what you are complaining
about here.

[Needless, to say, I don't believe in the philosophy that willful user
ignorance should be laid at the door of the software.  If you hit the
wrong keys, it does the wrong things.  This should not be surprising.] 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: annual "crap-for-brains software" posting

[news]

In article <9305111124.AA08521@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>, SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU writes
:
*Ted Holden writes:
*Having to spend ten times the going rate in both money and time for everything
*you ever do will prevent you from doing that.  That's a hell of a good reason
*for deep-sixing Ada.
*Ted Holden
*HTE

*  Well I guess its time for my annual "crap-for-brains software" posting
*again.  Each of the many times each workday that the commercial
*software in my office fails I think of these postings that scream
*"I want cheap software like Microsoft etc. produce"....

How about "I NEED cheap software, because the money for extravagences like
Ada simply isn't going to be there much longer!"?  That's called dealing
with reality.  A good example of the principal in practice is the escort
carrier of WW-II.  Using fleet carriers for all carrier duties in the war
would have simply cost too much.

And, if you don't like Microsoft, there are a number of more serious groups
out there, including Borland, Lotus, Novell, and lots of others.  Each markets
wonderous software products which, were they to be re-engineered/written in
Ada, would begin to function about as well as STANFINS-R, and be off the 
market in about two months.  The only thing I like about MicroSoft is the
fact that it is in this country and not Japan.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE