[31636] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2899 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri Apr 2 06:09:22 2010
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 03:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Fri, 2 Apr 2010 Volume: 11 Number: 2899
Today's topics:
Re: equivalent <sreservoir@gmail.com>
Re: How to convert "=?ISO-8895-1?Q?..." stuff? (Alan Curry)
Posting Guidelines for comp.lang.perl.misc ($Revision: tadmc@seesig.invalid
Re: software requirements again, take 483 <cartercc@gmail.com>
Re: software requirements again, take 483 <cwilbur@chromatico.net>
Re: software requirements again, take 483 <jimsgibson@gmail.com>
Re: software requirements again, take 483 <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: software requirements again, take 483 <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: software requirements again, take 483 <cartercc@gmail.com>
Re: software requirements again, take 483 <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:39:07 -0400
From: sreservoir <sreservoir@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: equivalent
Message-Id: <hp3ar3$efo$1@speranza.aioe.org>
On 3/31/2010 3:16 AM, Ben Morrow wrote:
>
> Quoth sreservoir<sreservoir@gmail.com>:
>>
>> this is, incidentally, slightly ridiculous.
>>
>> % perl -E'sub STDOUT::a { die "right blocking" }
>> say((*{STDOUT}{PACKAGE})->blocking);'
>> Can't locate object method "blocking" via package "main" at -e line 2.
>>
>> um.
>
> *STDOUT{PACKAGE} returns a string indicating which package *STDOUT is
> in, in this case "main". And no, it doesn't get preferentially treated
> as a package name, not even if you use *STDOUT::new{PACKAGE}.
er, I misread the docs on that.
can we just say that this part of perl is _weird_?
--
"Six by nine. Forty two."
"That's it. That's all there is."
"I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:48:55 +0000 (UTC)
From: pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry)
Subject: Re: How to convert "=?ISO-8895-1?Q?..." stuff?
Message-Id: <hp37sm$a5t$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In article <hp2j0p$rkq$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
Josef Moellers <josef_u._gabriele-moellers@t-online.de> wrote:
| if (/^From:\s/ || /^Subject:\s/) {
| s/_/ /g;
| 1 while (s/=\?ISO-8859-1\?Q\?(.*?)\?=/decode_qp($1)/e);
Youch. If you want to do this correctly, the magic word is RFC2047.
And the other magic word is Encode::MIME::Header
--
Alan Curry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 02:14:08 -0500
From: tadmc@seesig.invalid
Subject: Posting Guidelines for comp.lang.perl.misc ($Revision: 1.9 $)
Message-Id: <feidnbQ4hMzdBCjWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Outline
Before posting to comp.lang.perl.misc
Must
- Check the Perl Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- Check the other standard Perl docs (*.pod)
Really Really Should
- Lurk for a while before posting
- Search a Usenet archive
If You Like
- Check Other Resources
Posting to comp.lang.perl.misc
Is there a better place to ask your question?
- Question should be about Perl, not about the application area
How to participate (post) in the clpmisc community
- Carefully choose the contents of your Subject header
- Use an effective followup style
- Speak Perl rather than English, when possible
- Ask perl to help you
- Do not re-type Perl code
- Provide enough information
- Do not provide too much information
- Do not post binaries, HTML, or MIME
Social faux pas to avoid
- Asking a Frequently Asked Question
- Asking a question easily answered by a cursory doc search
- Asking for emailed answers
- Beware of saying "doesn't work"
- Sending a "stealth" Cc copy
Be extra cautious when you get upset
- Count to ten before composing a followup when you are upset
- Count to ten after composing and before posting when you are upset
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Posting Guidelines for comp.lang.perl.misc ($Revision: 1.9 $)
This newsgroup, commonly called clpmisc, is a technical newsgroup
intended to be used for discussion of Perl related issues (except job
postings), whether it be comments or questions.
As you would expect, clpmisc discussions are usually very technical in
nature and there are conventions for conduct in technical newsgroups
going somewhat beyond those in non-technical newsgroups.
The article at:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
describes how to get answers from technical people in general.
This article describes things that you should, and should not, do to
increase your chances of getting an answer to your Perl question. It is
available in POD, HTML and plain text formats at:
http://www.rehabitation.com/clpmisc.shtml
For more information about netiquette in general, see the "Netiquette
Guidelines" at:
http://andrew2.andrew.cmu.edu/rfc/rfc1855.html
A note to newsgroup "regulars":
Do not use these guidelines as a "license to flame" or other
meanness. It is possible that a poster is unaware of things
discussed here. Give them the benefit of the doubt, and just
help them learn how to post, rather than assume that they do
know and are being the "bad kind" of Lazy.
A note about technical terms used here:
In this document, we use words like "must" and "should" as
they're used in technical conversation (such as you will
encounter in this newsgroup). When we say that you *must* do
something, we mean that if you don't do that something, then
it's unlikely that you will benefit much from this group.
We're not bossing you around; we're making the point without
lots of words.
Do *NOT* send email to the maintainer of these guidelines. It will be
discarded unread. The guidelines belong to the newsgroup so all
discussion should appear in the newsgroup. I am just the secretary that
writes down the consensus of the group.
Before posting to comp.lang.perl.misc
Must
This section describes things that you *must* do before posting to
clpmisc, in order to maximize your chances of getting meaningful replies
to your inquiry and to avoid getting flamed for being lazy and trying to
have others do your work.
The perl distribution includes documentation that is copied to your hard
drive when you install perl. Also installed is a program for looking
things up in that (and other) documentation named 'perldoc'.
You should either find out where the docs got installed on your system,
or use perldoc to find them for you. Type "perldoc perldoc" to learn how
to use perldoc itself. Type "perldoc perl" to start reading Perl's
standard documentation.
Check the Perl Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Checking the FAQ before posting is required in Big 8 newsgroups in
general, there is nothing clpmisc-specific about this requirement.
You are expected to do this in nearly all newsgroups.
You can use the "-q" switch with perldoc to do a word search of the
questions in the Perl FAQs.
Check the other standard Perl docs (*.pod)
The perl distribution comes with much more documentation than is
available for most other newsgroups, so in clpmisc you should also
see if you can find an answer in the other (non-FAQ) standard docs
before posting.
It is *not* required, or even expected, that you actually *read* all of
Perl's standard docs, only that you spend a few minutes searching them
before posting.
Try doing a word-search in the standard docs for some words/phrases
taken from your problem statement or from your very carefully worded
"Subject:" header.
Really Really Should
This section describes things that you *really should* do before posting
to clpmisc.
Lurk for a while before posting
This is very important and expected in all newsgroups. Lurking means
to monitor a newsgroup for a period to become familiar with local
customs. Each newsgroup has specific customs and rituals. Knowing
these before you participate will help avoid embarrassing social
situations. Consider yourself to be a foreigner at first!
Search a Usenet archive
There are tens of thousands of Perl programmers. It is very likely
that your question has already been asked (and answered). See if you
can find where it has already been answered.
One such searchable archive is:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search
If You Like
This section describes things that you *can* do before posting to
clpmisc.
Check Other Resources
You may want to check in books or on web sites to see if you can
find the answer to your question.
But you need to consider the source of such information: there are a
lot of very poor Perl books and web sites, and several good ones
too, of course.
Posting to comp.lang.perl.misc
There can be 200 messages in clpmisc in a single day. Nobody is going to
read every article. They must decide somehow which articles they are
going to read, and which they will skip.
Your post is in competition with 199 other posts. You need to "win"
before a person who can help you will even read your question.
These sections describe how you can help keep your article from being
one of the "skipped" ones.
Is there a better place to ask your question?
Question should be about Perl, not about the application area
It can be difficult to separate out where your problem really is,
but you should make a conscious effort to post to the most
applicable newsgroup. That is, after all, where you are the most
likely to find the people who know how to answer your question.
Being able to "partition" a problem is an essential skill for
effectively troubleshooting programming problems. If you don't get
that right, you end up looking for answers in the wrong places.
It should be understood that you may not know that the root of your
problem is not Perl-related (the two most frequent ones are CGI and
Operating System related), so off-topic postings will happen from
time to time. Be gracious when someone helps you find a better place
to ask your question by pointing you to a more applicable newsgroup.
How to participate (post) in the clpmisc community
Carefully choose the contents of your Subject header
You have 40 precious characters of Subject to win out and be one of
the posts that gets read. Don't waste them. Take care while
composing them, they are the key that opens the door to getting an
answer.
Spend them indicating what aspect of Perl others will find if they
should decide to read your article.
Do not spend them indicating "experience level" (guru, newbie...).
Do not spend them pleading (please read, urgent, help!...).
Do not spend them on non-Subjects (Perl question, one-word
Subject...)
For more information on choosing a Subject see "Choosing Good
Subject Lines":
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/D/DM/DMR/subjects.post
Part of the beauty of newsgroup dynamics, is that you can contribute
to the community with your very first post! If your choice of
Subject leads a fellow Perler to find the thread you are starting,
then even asking a question helps us all.
Use an effective followup style
When composing a followup, quote only enough text to establish the
context for the comments that you will add. Always indicate who
wrote the quoted material. Never quote an entire article. Never
quote a .signature (unless that is what you are commenting on).
Intersperse your comments *following* each section of quoted text to
which they relate. Unappreciated followup styles are referred to as
"top-posting", "Jeopardy" (because the answer comes before the
question), or "TOFU" (Text Over, Fullquote Under).
Reversing the chronology of the dialog makes it much harder to
understand (some folks won't even read it if written in that style).
For more information on quoting style, see:
http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html
Speak Perl rather than English, when possible
Perl is much more precise than natural language. Saying it in Perl
instead will avoid misunderstanding your question or problem.
Do not say: I have variable with "foo\tbar" in it.
Instead say: I have $var = "foo\tbar", or I have $var = 'foo\tbar',
or I have $var = <DATA> (and show the data line).
Ask perl to help you
You can ask perl itself to help you find common programming mistakes
by doing two things: enable warnings (perldoc warnings) and enable
"strict"ures (perldoc strict).
You should not bother the hundreds/thousands of readers of the
newsgroup without first seeing if a machine can help you find your
problem. It is demeaning to be asked to do the work of a machine. It
will annoy the readers of your article.
You can look up any of the messages that perl might issue to find
out what the message means and how to resolve the potential mistake
(perldoc perldiag). If you would like perl to look them up for you,
you can put "use diagnostics;" near the top of your program.
Do not re-type Perl code
Use copy/paste or your editor's "import" function rather than
attempting to type in your code. If you make a typo you will get
followups about your typos instead of about the question you are
trying to get answered.
Provide enough information
If you do the things in this item, you will have an Extremely Good
chance of getting people to try and help you with your problem!
These features are a really big bonus toward your question winning
out over all of the other posts that you are competing with.
First make a short (less than 20-30 lines) and *complete* program
that illustrates the problem you are having. People should be able
to run your program by copy/pasting the code from your article. (You
will find that doing this step very often reveals your problem
directly. Leading to an answer much more quickly and reliably than
posting to Usenet.)
Describe *precisely* the input to your program. Also provide example
input data for your program. If you need to show file input, use the
__DATA__ token (perldata.pod) to provide the file contents inside of
your Perl program.
Show the output (including the verbatim text of any messages) of
your program.
Describe how you want the output to be different from what you are
getting.
If you have no idea at all of how to code up your situation, be sure
to at least describe the 2 things that you *do* know: input and
desired output.
Do not provide too much information
Do not just post your entire program for debugging. Most especially
do not post someone *else's* entire program.
Do not post binaries, HTML, or MIME
clpmisc is a text only newsgroup. If you have images or binaries
that explain your question, put them in a publically accessible
place (like a Web server) and provide a pointer to that location. If
you include code, cut and paste it directly in the message body.
Don't attach anything to the message. Don't post vcards or HTML.
Many people (and even some Usenet servers) will automatically filter
out such messages. Many people will not be able to easily read your
post. Plain text is something everyone can read.
Social faux pas to avoid
The first two below are symptoms of lots of FAQ asking here in clpmisc.
It happens so often that folks will assume that it is happening yet
again. If you have looked but not found, or found but didn't understand
the docs, say so in your article.
Asking a Frequently Asked Question
It should be understood that you may have missed the applicable FAQ
when you checked, which is not a big deal. But if the Frequently
Asked Question is worded similar to your question, folks will assume
that you did not look at all. Don't become indignant at pointers to
the FAQ, particularly if it solves your problem.
Asking a question easily answered by a cursory doc search
If folks think you have not even tried the obvious step of reading
the docs applicable to your problem, they are likely to become
annoyed.
If you are flamed for not checking when you *did* check, then just
shrug it off (and take the answer that you got).
Asking for emailed answers
Emailed answers benefit one person. Posted answers benefit the
entire community. If folks can take the time to answer your
question, then you can take the time to go get the answer in the
same place where you asked the question.
It is OK to ask for a *copy* of the answer to be emailed, but many
will ignore such requests anyway. If you munge your address, you
should never expect (or ask) to get email in response to a Usenet
post.
Ask the question here, get the answer here (maybe).
Beware of saying "doesn't work"
This is a "red flag" phrase. If you find yourself writing that,
pause and see if you can't describe what is not working without
saying "doesn't work". That is, describe how it is not what you
want.
Sending a "stealth" Cc copy
A "stealth Cc" is when you both email and post a reply without
indicating *in the body* that you are doing so.
Be extra cautious when you get upset
Count to ten before composing a followup when you are upset
This is recommended in all Usenet newsgroups. Here in clpmisc, most
flaming sub-threads are not about any feature of Perl at all! They
are most often for what was seen as a breach of netiquette. If you
have lurked for a bit, then you will know what is expected and won't
make such posts in the first place.
But if you get upset, wait a while before writing your followup. I
recommend waiting at least 30 minutes.
Count to ten after composing and before posting when you are upset
After you have written your followup, wait *another* 30 minutes
before committing yourself by posting it. You cannot take it back
once it has been said.
AUTHOR
Tad McClellan and many others on the comp.lang.perl.misc newsgroup.
--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.liamg\100cm.j.dat/"
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: software requirements again, take 483
Message-Id: <83a0cba8-be79-42d6-a5fc-ec617e58734a@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 1, 2:19=A0pm, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.net> wrote:
> The problem is that this lack of communication has somehow become *your*
> problem, and you seem to have accepted that. =A0Doing that just sets
> yourself up for more frustration and more failure.
I agree that the problem is lack of communication. As to the back end,
my main database query used a table that had EXACTLY one person per
task. As I mentioned, I have been doing this for years, and had ALWAYS
submitted a data file with one person per task.
The intermediate person, the one who is not available to talk to,
apparently manually adjusted the data files, because the ultimate
file, when delivered to the manager, was correct. In this case, the
requirement that on a few occasions a multiple number of individuals
could be assigned one task was 'unknown' in the sense that I didn't
know it, and the managing executive didn't know it.
I agree that the software had a bug, and the bug was my
responsibility, but how do you protect yourself from 'unknown'
requirements, in the absence of the person who actually KNOWS the
requirements?
CC
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 20:25:52 -0400
From: Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@chromatico.net>
Subject: Re: software requirements again, take 483
Message-Id: <86tyru3dkf.fsf@mithril.chromatico.net>
>>>>> "cc" == ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com> writes:
cc> I agree that the software had a bug, and the bug was my
cc> responsibility, but how do you protect yourself from 'unknown'
cc> requirements, in the absence of the person who actually KNOWS
cc> the requirements?
There are dozens of books written on this, and understanding their
contents is what separates a software engineer from a code monkey.
The fundamental rule, however, is that before you type a single
character of Perl you should have a clear, unambiguous statement, agreed
to by the business owner of the process you're automating or
facilitating, of what the requirements are for the phase of development
that you're in. When you have that statement, then you can estimate how
long it will take and what it depends on. Everything else is details.
Your problem, professionally, is that you don't get that unambiguous
statement, and if you do, and it turns out to be wrong, you accept
the blame and vent here. So long as you accept the blame and fix it,
the people in your organization have no incentive to change. If they
get the requirements wrong, they just pass the blame on to you. As long
as you keep on accepting it, nothing will change.
Your responsibility is to make sure you understand as well as possible
what the business process owner is asking for, and to give him what he
asks for. His responsibility is to ask for what he really wants. There
is no reasonable way for you to take on his responsibility, and your
biggest problem is that you allow him to foist it off on you.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:34:01 -0700
From: Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: software requirements again, take 483
Message-Id: <010420101734013738%jimsgibson@gmail.com>
In article
<83a0cba8-be79-42d6-a5fc-ec617e58734a@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2:19 pm, Charlton Wilbur <cwil...@chromatico.net> wrote:
> > The problem is that this lack of communication has somehow become *your*
> > problem, and you seem to have accepted that. Doing that just sets
> > yourself up for more frustration and more failure.
>
> I agree that the problem is lack of communication. As to the back end,
> my main database query used a table that had EXACTLY one person per
> task. As I mentioned, I have been doing this for years, and had ALWAYS
> submitted a data file with one person per task.
>
> The intermediate person, the one who is not available to talk to,
> apparently manually adjusted the data files, because the ultimate
> file, when delivered to the manager, was correct. In this case, the
> requirement that on a few occasions a multiple number of individuals
> could be assigned one task was 'unknown' in the sense that I didn't
> know it, and the managing executive didn't know it.
>
> I agree that the software had a bug, and the bug was my
> responsibility, but how do you protect yourself from 'unknown'
> requirements, in the absence of the person who actually KNOWS the
> requirements?
You get a set of written requirements and implement your program to
comply with them. You will probably have to write the requirements
yourself, since nobody else will think it is a worthwhile exercise. So
you do it, then get sign off from your boss and the customer
(end-user).
Then, when the program fails to meet the end-user's expectations, you
point out how the program actually complies with the written
requirements to which they agreed. Then, you revise the requirements to
match the user's expectations, modify the program to match the new
requirements, and move on to the next problem, iterating until
everybody is happy.
It is not really a software bug if the program complies with its
requirements. It is a requirements bug if the software complies with
the requirements but does not meet the user's expectations.
--
Jim Gibson
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:48:43 -0700
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: software requirements again, take 483
Message-Id: <o2jar5hgrhndnqke276dmsm80u9i66ua1u@4ax.com>
ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com> wrote:
>I agree that the software had a bug, and the bug was my
>responsibility,
No, it hadn't and no you weren't. The software behaved according to the
spec, so there was no bug in the software.
>but how do you protect yourself from 'unknown'
>requirements, in the absence of the person who actually KNOWS the
>requirements?
By making sure that everyone who has a stake in the software attends the
spec review and signs off on the spec. If he doesn't speak up then a
flaw in the spec becomes _HIS_ problem, not yours.
jue
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:50:16 -0700
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: software requirements again, take 483
Message-Id: <o9jar5dn51ge04hk6vj3pk2nafp049krhf@4ax.com>
Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@chromatico.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "cc" == ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com> writes:
>
> cc> I agree that the software had a bug, and the bug was my
> cc> responsibility, but how do you protect yourself from 'unknown'
> cc> requirements, in the absence of the person who actually KNOWS
> cc> the requirements?
>
>There are dozens of books written on this, and understanding their
>contents is what separates a software engineer from a code monkey.
>
>The fundamental rule, however, is that before you type a single
>character of Perl you should have a clear, unambiguous statement, agreed
>to by the business owner of the process you're automating or
>facilitating, of what the requirements are for the phase of development
>that you're in. When you have that statement, then you can estimate how
>long it will take and what it depends on. Everything else is details.
>
>Your problem, professionally, is that you don't get that unambiguous
>statement, and if you do, and it turns out to be wrong, you accept
>the blame and vent here. So long as you accept the blame and fix it,
>the people in your organization have no incentive to change. If they
>get the requirements wrong, they just pass the blame on to you. As long
>as you keep on accepting it, nothing will change.
>
>Your responsibility is to make sure you understand as well as possible
>what the business process owner is asking for, and to give him what he
>asks for. His responsibility is to ask for what he really wants. There
>is no reasonable way for you to take on his responsibility, and your
>biggest problem is that you allow him to foist it off on you.
Amen to that, very well brought down to the point!
jue
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: software requirements again, take 483
Message-Id: <92461fa4-1778-4aca-a88c-693847bcb60c@30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 1, 3:50=A0pm, Jurgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for your comments. Please see below.
> So, what was the feedback from those people when you presented your
> spec?
There wasn't any spec. The organization changed the written
documentation, I was presented with the template, and was told to
'copy that.' Come to think of it, this probably WAS the specification.
> Did they miss the flaw, too, and signed off on the misguided
> concept?
The previous documents were one per task. The new documents are one
per person regardless of the number of tasks. I don't think anyone
realized that a task could be performed by multiple people -- not even
the big institutional database allowed it. The new format 'broke' the
old automation and thus had to be rewritten. (The new format was
dictated by HR, and the very first thing I brought up was why HR
didn't consult with IT as to the workability of the new format, but HR
doesn't have anything to do with IT.)
> And what about during the testing phase? Yes, testing should primarily
> check if the code complies with the written specification, but at least
> in the later parts when actual users check out if the progam meets their
> needs, then they should have noticed that critical functionality is
> missing.
Actually, this was discovered during the testing phase. I had sent the
final set of documents to the manager and told her to examine them to
see if they had error, which they did. At least this part worked as
expected: test for errors, correct the errors, and test again. We
tested until there weren't any more errors.
> Honestly, looking at your long history here in this NG you are in this
> way over your head and while you are trying to make up with a lot of
> enthusiasm and determination it is hard to overlook that you are missing
> basic skills for the job you are supposed to do.
This is the truth. I'm not a programmer but a database guy. I get to
do programming because I am the only one who can, and I get to do it
all: analysis, design, implementation, testing and debugging,
deployment, and maintenance. It's a pretty good job, and I honestly
don't feel much stress.
> It's like you know how to use a hammer and a saw and you are actually
> rather skillful with those. So you are building garden sheds and the
> occasional deck or gazebo and you turn them out on demand, in decend
> quality and functional. But that doesn't automatically qualify you to
> build a house or like in this case an add-on garage with mother-in-law.
That's right. This stretches me in terms of my skill level and
capabilities. I'm not complaining about that at all.
> Those projects simply require planning, organization, and preparation
> skills (aka project management) which you don't have. And, if you excuse
> me for saying so, which you have shown little interest to learn or to
> adapt.
That's at least partially true, but in mitigation, the vast majority
of my work consists of one off projects that literally can be
completed from start to finish in an hour or less, and this
environment does not inculcate the habit of planning, organization,
and preparation. Most things are so simple that you can start coding
from memory and never have to look at the Perl documentation or steal
code from past scripts.
> It's really the same story over and over again: you need to get your
> nose out of the editor and stop worrying about those pesky syntax
> errors. The actual coding part is only one small portion of the whole
> development process and you have to start looking at the bigger picture
> and understand development processes in context or things like this here
> will keep happening again and again and every single time you will get
> more and more frustrated.
I may have mentioned that I'm in a solo ship, literally. I've not a
developer, or analyst, or even a programmer, but primarily a data
munger. I'm pretty good at what I do, and have a good reputation at
work for turning sow's ears into silk purses.
> Now, I do understand that there are people who couldn't care less about
> project management and love spending all their day coding from dawn to
> dusk instead. Fair enough, there's nothing wrong with that.
> But based on your stories your position is not a position where you have
> the luxury to do that. There is nobody else who would provide this
> service for you, nobody you would talk with the users, gather and
> organize their requirements, organize your coding work, organize the
> schedule, testing, feedback gathering, and and and.
> Therefore you either have to grow into that role or find someone else to
> cover that role. Because as long as you keep applying the same
> non-functioning process you cannot expect the outcome to change for the
> better.
All true. Again, in mitigation, my users sometimes don't know what
their requirements are. It's a common occurrence for me to furnish
information based on a written request that complies exactly with the
written request, and find out that the user really needs something
totally different. This happens maybe once in ten or twenty reports.
I like my job. The pay is lousy, but it's low stress, lots of off
time, not that much to do, I don't really have a boss that I have to
report to, I get time off to go to school, I get to play with
different technologies (including devoting a substantial time to
learning other languages, most recently Erlang and Lisp), and have the
respect of those who see what I do.
Plus, I enjoy griping, and you will accept my apology if I sometimes
favor c.l.p.m. with some of it.
CC.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:17:08 +0200
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: software requirements again, take 483
Message-Id: <slrnhrbdgl.t2e.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2010-04-02 00:34, Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
><83a0cba8-be79-42d6-a5fc-ec617e58734a@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> ccc31807 <cartercc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> how do you protect yourself from 'unknown' requirements, in the
>> absence of the person who actually KNOWS the requirements?
>
> You get a set of written requirements and implement your program to
> comply with them. You will probably have to write the requirements
> yourself, since nobody else will think it is a worthwhile exercise. So
> you do it, then get sign off from your boss and the customer
> (end-user).
>
> Then, when the program fails to meet the end-user's expectations, you
> point out how the program actually complies with the written
> requirements to which they agreed. Then, you revise the requirements to
> match the user's expectations, modify the program to match the new
> requirements, and move on to the next problem, iterating until
> everybody is happy.
The tricky part here is to make everybody happy. That not only means
that the users get what they want in the end, you must also avoid
frustration during the process. I think some points which help are:
1) Make clear from the start that the process is iterative. If both
sides are aware that the spec isn't carved in stone but can and will
be amended then it is much easier to do this.
2) Try to avoid passing blame. It isn't important whether the customer
forgot to tell something or changed their mind or whether the
programmer didn't ask the right questions or misunderstood the specs.
The important thing is that a flaw has been detected and must be
fixed. So write it in the specs and move on. (yes, some people always
want a scapegoat for every problem, preferrably before they even know
that there is a problem - but if they don't have to fear they they
will be blamed they are also less likely to blame you)
3) Keep the iterations short. Firstly, that will enable everybody to
remember what was discussed the last time and secondly, it avoids
wasting much time by going far into the wrong direction.
4) Fix the most important problems first. That way you will quickly
converge on a version which is usable, although it may not be
perfect.
5) As soon as the product is usable, use it! Avoid the temptation to
make it perfect. It never will be.
hp
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp://cil-www.oce.orst.edu/pub/perl/old-digests.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V11 Issue 2899
***************************************
