Re: C++ Envy

[eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)]

In article <3ge3ou$t0a@usafa2.usafa.af.mil> cwarack@picard.usafa.af.mil (Chris Warack <sys mgr>) writes:

 > Finally, I don't believe cases like this are driven from mischief
 > either.  If people don't think something (like CM and speed limits)
 > is important, they tend to ignore it.  It seems that programmers
 > (as a whole) are more prone to this than other disciplines.

    I agree with most of what Chris said, but I have to disagree with
this, at least on government contracts.  There are rogue programmers
who only look good because all the other programmers are suffering
from fixing their wild actions, but in general it is the managers who
cause the CM system to get bypassed.  In my experience, if a manager
has a choice between meeting schedule and keeping the configuration
under control, he will "do anything" to aviod the schedule slip.  The
poor programmers feel squeezed--they are the ones who have to deal
with the consequences--but that they have no choice.

    It is my firm belief that on many contracts, the best thing the
SPO can do is to from time to time put a gun to the project managers
head and tell him to take three weeks NOW and get the CM system back
in place.  I have worked projects where there were three or more
different versions of each build, and the software being used by the
programmers had little or no relation to the version the testers were
using.  (But each version had its own check in/check out protocol
enforced...)  All in the name of "meeting schedule."

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...