Timeline for Does software reuse preclude process repeatability
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 30, 2015 at 14:56 | history | edited | durron597 |
Removed [learning] tag
|
|
| Dec 15, 2014 at 17:22 | history | edited | user53019 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Formatting to clean up the question.
|
| Aug 12, 2013 at 4:55 | audit | First posts | |||
| Aug 12, 2013 at 4:56 | |||||
| Jul 24, 2013 at 14:50 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | moved from User.Id=53019 by developer User.Id=63 | |
| S Jul 23, 2013 at 15:32 | history | bounty ended | gnat | ||
| S Jul 23, 2013 at 15:32 | history | notice removed | gnat | ||
| Jul 22, 2013 at 15:19 | comment | added | user53019 | @Dunk - consider expanding that line of thought into a full answer. It's reasonable / acceptable to state "Your question is based upon a faulty premise. This is what you should be looking at, and this is the answer you should find." | |
| Jul 22, 2013 at 14:46 | comment | added | Dunk | How many problems did Frank Lloyd Wright have to solve in his 1000 structures versus Anders Hejsberg in defining his mere 5 languages? Wright got to make decisions by decree, Anders had to justify decisions to many people just as smart and knowledgeable as him. I'll bet that Anders had to solve many, many more issues. So your throwing numbers in the mix is merely on what you are choosing to count and not any REAL quantifiable comparable numbers. So I like the question, I just don't like the reasoning/examples inspiring the question. SW efficiency has improved tremendously over the years. | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 7:28 | answer | added | Edward | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jul 17, 2013 at 15:24 | answer | added | Boise | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Jul 17, 2013 at 13:53 | history | suggested | Ampt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Attempted to format the question to make it more digestible and readable. Also added learning tag because, at the core, this is about how reuse affects learning.
|
| Jul 17, 2013 at 13:51 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 17, 2013 at 13:53 | |||||
| Jul 17, 2013 at 11:49 | history | edited | user53019 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1470 characters in body
|
| Jul 17, 2013 at 3:44 | answer | added | Amot | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jul 17, 2013 at 0:58 | comment | added | gnat | @GlenH7 expanded it into the answer, mostly to include pictures of bridges :) | |
| Jul 17, 2013 at 0:56 | answer | added | gnat | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 17, 2013 at 0:55 | answer | added | psr | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 16, 2013 at 23:58 | comment | added | user53019 | @gnat - that's an excellent insight and a perspective I hadn't pondered yet. Other aspects of the SDLC become much more efficient due to that repetition. | |
| S Jul 16, 2013 at 23:24 | history | bounty started | gnat | ||
| S Jul 16, 2013 at 23:24 | history | notice added | gnat | Draw attention | |
| Jul 16, 2013 at 23:23 | comment | added | gnat | good software projects "shift" a lot of repeatability into QA. When I was a tester in 1,5 year long project, we run test cycles at weekly "checkpoint" releases, about 70 times total through the project. That was... quite repeatable, softly speaking (not much things change in a week). Testing nightly builds has been, naturally, even more repeatable - about 500 times through the project (few entertaining showstopper bugs were too rare to make a difference). Now, tell me a construction company that has built 500 bridges - all with the same team | |
| Jul 16, 2013 at 16:48 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | moved from User.Id=53019 by developer User.Id=63 | |
| Jul 16, 2013 at 23:56 | |||||
| Jul 14, 2013 at 19:12 | comment | added | Deer Hunter | If you've written a piece of code, you've essentially solved a problem. If you are good at it, this piece solves a CLASS of problems. If you are really good, it is extensible to a metaclass of problems. And then you lose interest: there is no need to perfect one bicycle if there are unsolved design problems lying around. The thrill of problem solving comes from shining new stuff, not from polishing old problems into perfection. | |
| Jul 14, 2013 at 17:09 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/356460397261361152 | ||
| Jul 14, 2013 at 15:53 | answer | added | Thomas Owens♦ | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jul 14, 2013 at 15:46 | answer | added | Euphoric | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jul 14, 2013 at 15:24 | history | asked | user53019 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |