View Single Post
  #21   Report Post  
Steve Jorgensen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 28 Jun 2004 07:35:09 -0400, (Mike Rivers) wrote:


In article
am writes:

Actually, there are a lot of us programmers who have learned that strictly
following processes that divide up refactoring and improvement stages are well
worth doing, and we do it pretty rigorously.


That's a good thing if you're working for customers who can afford it.
But it's one of the things that makes software more expensive than
many people believe it should be.


That point can be debated, but I'll assert that it's not at all true. The
fact is that most of the time spent in the programming process is debugging
your own work, and figuring out why what you just wrote doesn't work.
Programming using a cycle of refactoring and improving stages means you find
bugs sooner after they are created, and spend less time tracking them down
later. Keeping code quality high as you go makes it easier and less time
consuming to work on the code.

Unfortunately, fully automated, complete, repeatable testing is, AFAIK, not
possible with a studio wiring plan. it would be nice if it were.


It's not automated, but you should test every path, and every jack. It
takes time, but it can (and should) be done, at least once, when you
install it. Unlike software, wires break and jacks don't always make
good contact, so even if you know it used to work, sometimes it
breaks.

Ah, but it's not the same jack, and was the module properly normalled? Is it
the same wire, or did I use a different cord because it needed to be longer?


Well, you're using a jack that used to work (but you may have miswired
it when you make the change). And if you change the cable, then you've
made two changes without testing.


I think we're on the same page.