[Interest] What don't you like about Qt?
sda at fstab.net
Sun Oct 16 17:47:15 CEST 2016
> On 2016-10-15 20:59, Roland Hughes wrote:
> > On 09/28/2016 12:25 PM, interest-request at qt-project.org wrote:
> > Don't you have unit tests?
> > Yes. But which is better, to be forced to use an inherently error-prone
> > use a robust modern language (C++) and have less bugs to find and fix in
> > the first place?
> When you work off nothing but stories you are hacking on the fly and if
> your coders
> aren't system architect level people, not just one, but each and every
> one of them,
> you end in failure. You end up with a developer choosing to store data
> in JSON files
> for a device taking dozens, some times hundreds of readings per second,
> the new reading to the end of a JSON array and writing the entire file
> back to an
> SD card. Without the event->message->device response->message->event
> life cycle
> completely mapped out in a solid document you end up with a dozen
> working from a dozen different stories doing it a dozen different ways
> so eventually
> you end up with an embedded system slamming hundreds of requests onto a
> message bus
> for data it only needed to get once at startup.
Documents won't avoid that... at my last job we did 'v-model
development' and created hundreds of pages of documentation and then
went off and coded for months ignoring the documentation because it was
bad and never kept up to date. It had quadruplicated definitions of
features that all disagreed. Copied/pasted/modified definitions done
pages at a time. One feature definition stated, if you bothered to
actually read it, that the entire system must not move (hint: its
purpose was to move...). That was one of the multiply copied items. :]
Anyways, any development methodology will fail if implemented poorly.
If the buzz-word is agile, it will likely fail because management won't
be willing to handle it appropriately. Same goes for v-model.
More information about the Interest