[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Poor-man's Catweasel



mdj wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:39 pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
mdj wrote:
On Feb 8, 8:00 am, Steven Hirsch <snhir...@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems like every major application I install that's written in Java comes
with its own huge discrete JRE.  That's almost a tacit admission of the lack
of interoperability.  Anyone can write bad code, but there just seems to be a
lot of it written in Java.  Probably a lot of good examples out there, but I
just haven't run into much of them <shrug>.
It does tend to feel worse due the "payload size" of the JRE, but
really, most platforms are plagued by this problem. Vendors will
usually take the path of least resistance(tm), and simply bundle
dependencies as a part of their distribution.
A classic problem you do get in the Java world is this one: Vendor
writes app that depends on newer features that are not (yet) a part of
the standard runtime. When a new runtime comes along, the feature is
often folded in, but teams don't typically get the time to rationalise
their codebase against the newer versions, resulting in duplication
and additional complexity.
It's almost universally true in the software industry that 'just
barely good enough' is seen as acceptable, since product lifetimes are
so short. I spend a lot of time trying to convince phb's that the
'technical debt' incurred by taking the shortest path ends up being
paid for over and again for each iteration, and there are real
benefits to be reaped from cleaning it up.
As I used to say, "quick and dirty" is never quick but always dirty.
;-)

:-) I really like the middle ground. If you engineer everything you
system will be, well, over engineered ;-)

Alternatively, take some of the time you 'get' by being a bit dirty,
and spend it refactoring the things that need it (using the 20-20 of
hindsight). This works pretty well, assuming your engineers don't
spend the time posting to Usenet ...

I agree, "virtue stands in the middle".  My saying was a counterbalance
against going too far Q&D.

The counterbalances on the other side are "the perfect is the enemy of
the good", and "good enough is good enough".  ;-)

But I still find myself "tuning comments" from time to time...  ;-)

OCD seems to be endemic to engineers and programmers!

-michael

******** Note new website URL ********

NadaNet and AppleCrate II for Apple II parallel computing!
Home page:  http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."