Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I work on developer tools for a particular product. There is a competing set of tools for the same product produced by a different company. The user-base is split roughly 50-50 between us.
Recently, the other company has introduced scripting to make their own tools extensible by end-users. This is a feature that we have had planned for our tools for a while, but it is only now that we are able to start implementing it.
My question is: should we try as much as possible to collaborate with the developers of competing product so that end-user scripts can be shared between users on the different products? We would obviously require different implementations, but share the same syntax. This would obviously be better for the community as a whole since there would be more interoperability.
The downside of collaborating like this is that the competing product's scripting language is slightly tailored towards their own implementation. We would have to jump through a few hoops to create an implementation for their scripts on our platform. Or, we would have to somehow convince our competitor to modify their scripts so that they are platform agnostic.
So, to rephrase my question: should we try to collaborate, thus making our community happier, or should we produce a competing scripting language that is more appropriate for our platform?
I realize that this is a very general question with no single right or wrong answer. What I am looking for is a good explanation of the pros and cons of each approach.
I would write something that is specifically tailored towards my own system (don't compromise your technical quality) and then release and fully support a compatibility layer that allows my competitors scripts to run on my system (make it easy for users to migrate).
I'd stay away from doing things that will try to lock people in and cripple them if they move. These tactics worked once upon a time but in this day and age don't really cut it any more. I'd even go so far as to actually (unofficially on fora etc.) help people who are having trouble porting scripts running on my system to my competitors.
Another way to ask the question (and to answer) is to wonder WHAT KIND of script language is DESIRABLE FOR USERS.
If your competitor went a lock-in route with a proprietary scripted language, then please your users (and get a competitive edge) by using a STANDARD scripted language.
Doing so will immensely increase the value of your tool as many persons ALREADY know the scripted language.
Nobody wants to learn a new language.
Would building a unified scripting language harm your customer-base or give the competitor the competitive edge?
Obviously if you want to lock in customers, go solo which will prevent your customers from easily switching over to the competitor's product (sounds a little like Microsoft tactics) or if you know your product is superior, a collaboration will allow you to get customers from the competitor in which case customers will have the choice to choose which business model suits their needs, make a choice based on the quality of the product as a whole as well as which features they really need instead of being locked into an invisible contract due to the choice they made initially.
Going the collaboration route will also put your company in a position where developers will respect your company (for not being a greedy monopoly monster) instead of boycotting it due to their "moral" beliefs in open standards.
I would say that if possible make it compatible, not so much to cooperate but to compete. Making an incompatible solution would lock you customers in to some degree (you don't have any yet with a lot of scripts - so not much gain), but making a compatible solution keeps the door open for customers of your competition to migrate (they might have some scripts by the time you ship yours).
Just my 2cents
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I am interested in developing a new SQL-based RDS which can generate prototype CRUD-oriented 4GL code which can then be easily customized. So I am looking for opinions, suggestions, etc. in what features should a new RDS have?
I have looked at several products. FileMaker is more or less the type of product I'm looking for, but it's not SQL-based. Informix 4GL and 4Js are what comes closest, but the lead time for customizing/debugging seems to take a long time.
Depends on the market you are aiming for. In your place, my first decision would be whether to link it to a specific RDBMS implementation (which would be Oracle, SQL Server or mySQL) or to try to make it flexible to use amongst any of the major databases. The latter would obviously add massively to the complexity (development, testing, support).
The second would be the OS platform. Something that is specific to Windows (or perhaps Windows Vista/7 upwards) or can be used on Linux, OSX etc. 32bit/64bit would also be a consideration here. I'd need to know that it can run on 64-bit Windows 7 at least.
Thirdly, what do you develop your Rapid Development Tool in. Dot Net would pretty much be Windows only. Java or Python offer more choice.
Fourthly, are you making this as a commercial product, or as open source (or both). Bluntly, if I was looking at buying such a tool to develop my XYZ product in, I'd be looking at long-term support. If the tool doesn't have a five-year pedigree of ongoing support, I'd be very hesitant and would only consider it if it came from a company of the likes of Microsoft/IBM/Oracle/Apple with some serious history in the field. And even then I would be skeptical (search on Microsoft's Oslo/Quadrant/SQL Server Modeling).
I'd also be looking for professional tech writers for the documentation.
See the feature list of Oracle Application Express for some good ideas.
I've used a few of these tools and things that come to my mind are:
1/ automatic joining on foreign keys
2/ keeping columns in the same order as the table in the code
3/ dynamic code generation, no separate code generation stage
4/ undo on table changes
5/ prototyping features to enable actual data to be modelled during development
6/ hide column feature
7/ SQL import for those tricky bits
8/ code locking on tricky bits
9/ version control
10/ segmentation into namespaces
11/ Language templates for easy addition of extra code languages
I think going to an intermediate 4gl first would be good and then a second stage to render code in the language of choice would be good.
I hope this is of some use to you, good luck!
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I work in a small company (2-4 software developers) where software is "only" a part of the main product (specialized measurement instruments). So far the software has been built from start to end with no formal process at all, but as we're steadily growing in both in number of products and people involved, it's evident that we need to adopt some kind of methodology for the whole thing (designing, building, testing, maintaining) to avoid blowing into a mess
The problem is that none of us has much real-world experience on such processes. Wikipedia's software development methodology and software development process entries list lots of practices, and I'm aware of the modern buzzwords (agile, extreme, etc.), but we're still lost on how and from where to start all this.
What should we do to get started, given that currently we have no formal process, and the goal would be to have a light process that helps us keep things under control without slowing us down? Is there some:
Essential de facto literature that we should read first?
Essential tools? (We do have a SCM, but should we start using something like FogBugz?)
Practical "do this and this" guidelines?
Any guidelines are welcome, as long as they're not 1000+ page books! I want to avoid both the religious hype and the dull academicity that seem to surround this field, and find out what to do in practice.
Highly recommended reading includes : The Agile Manifesto and The Pragmatic Programmer. Subsequently, you'll probably want to get familiar with Scrum software development, or Test-Driven Development. At the very least you should have:
Source Control repository
Bug tracking system
Standard set of tools
for communication (A wiki tends to be
popular for documentation, these
days),
IDE
Testing framework
A lot of things will depend on the skills of your team and the application domain that you're seeking to go into. Get yourselves familiar with some methodologies, then practice them. Have 15 minute standing meetings at the start of the day. Develop code incrementally with a write a failing test, make it pass, repeat mindset. Etc etc.
I would suggest to try Scrum for start. As lightweight project management framework it should suite your small team needs.
To do that less painful I would also suggest temporary hiring someone familiar with scrum (certified scrum master maybe), after 3-4 months you should be able to keep it running by yourself. Really investing in few months of experienced team member should pay off. And I don't mean analytic, consultant or whatever you call person that comes, analyzes, makes presentation, takes money and goes while you stay with a problem. I mean Team member that will work with you but also introduce scrum to you via daily practice.
You could also just read some books instead, or send one or two team members to a training, but I think that having someone to incorporate Scrum into your daily work and start learning by examples is the best.
Good description detailed description (based on daily work) would be Scrum and XP from the Trenches (alternative source).
Subscribing rigidly to someone else's view of the development process isn't going to work for everyone. Start with the real basics
Get the basics of the development process right - see The Joel Test.
Track everything. Use a system like JIRA, FogBugz or so on to track all issues, features and bugs that are ever reported. Track how long you spend on each task; the information you have the better prepared you'll be.
Triage - Work with stakeholders to make sure what you are doing is actually important, rather than just what you think is important. In my experience, developers and customers often have wildly differing views!
I'm a huge fan of the recent Lean literature by the forerunners of the movement, Mary and Tom Poppendieck:
Lean Toolkit
Implementing Lean Software Development: From Concept to Cash
Leading Lean Software Development
These are very practical books that look at the whole business value chain from a software team's viewpoint, instead of being head-down in software land and ignoring business goals.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm responsible of finding a good way to document the software project I'm working on.
What things are important to document? Should documentation of code and design mainly be in the code in the form of comments? Should we put text files or Word documents directly in the source control togetether with code? Should we use a wiki?
Factors to think about include how easy it is for the current team to create the documentation, and how easy it is for other developers to find, correct and extend the documentation later. My experience from many projects is that developers tend to not write documentation because the system for writing it is too complex or developer unfriendly, and that after a few years, new developers can hardly find the little documentation that was written.
I'm interested in what approaches you have used in similar projects. What worked well, what did not work well, and why?
Some key facts about the project:
The platform is C# and .NET.
We use Visual Studio and Team Foundation Server for source control and work item (task) management.
We use Scrum and test-driven development and are inspired by domain-driven design.
The software consists of a collection of web services and two GUI clients.
Other clients are going to integrate with the web services in the future. The integration will be done by other developers on other teams (so the web services form a kind of API).
SharePoint is heavily used throughout the development environment. Most projects have a SharePoint site, including ours.
On our project's SharePoint site we currently have a bunch of MS Office documents on things like requirements, design, presentations for stakeholders etc. Keeping everything up to date is hard.
We also have a SharePoint wiki for the development team only, where we document things in an unstructured manner as we go along. Examples include how our build scripts are organized, our testing policy, coding guidelines.
The software is an in-house application in a fairly big financial institution.
The software is developed by a team of six people over a period of ~1 year.
The developers are consultants hired in for this project only, and will not be available to help in the future (unless the client decides to pay for it).
The client has few guidlines for how this kind of project should be documented.
I think the most important things to document are the decisions. This goes for everything from requirements to architectural choices. What are the requirements of module X? How are these requirements represented in the architecture? Why did you choose architectural pattern A over B? What are the benefits? The same goes for source code: it is common knowledge that commenting the why is way better than the how.
How you document these decisions does not matter that much in my opinion, whether you use a Wiki or a Requirements document made in Word. More important is that these documents are always up-to-date and that it is easy for anyone to access them. This can be achieved by using a wiki, or placing the documents under source control, as you say. If only a few have access to them, they are more likely not to get updated, and not to be read when necessary.
We use a Wiki for our current project and it works very well. It is easy to access for anyone (developers, managers, and customers) and a history can track changes, so you know what has been changed and why. Furthermore, we try to document the code in a meaningful way and document the major design decisions. We try not to document too much, e.g. minor things, as it is always hard to keep those things up-to-date and it is not worth the effort, imho.
Worst for me than lack of documentation is excess of documentation.
Keep in mind that yes: it's really important to document your project, but also that the major part of your documentation is always at risk of never been read at all.
So, I think that a good starting point consist in thinking of your documentation more like something that you may use to introduce new developers to your project than an over detailed description of the inner workings of your software.
G'day,
Definitely use a wiki. I'd recommend TWiki as it's an excellent and extensive implementation of a wiki without being too complicated to install and manage.
Here's a couple of initial thoughts.
Categories:
Start off with an initial ontology of what you want to capture but
allow people to add new categories or sub-categories as required,
allow people to retitle (sub-)categories as required and maybe as agreed for this one so you don't get fragmentation for multiple names for basically the same thing.
let any initial (sub-)categories wither and die if they are left empty. Do this at the end of the project as some areas may only have entries towards the end of a project.
Tagging:
Start using a tag cloud. BTW here's an excellent plug-in available for TWiki to start classifying content early on in the project. Retrofitting tags is almost impossible to do. Starting tagging early also allows people to search for information that may be there already rather than having the same info located in multiple places.
HTH I'll come back and add more points as I think of them.
First and most important, have the comments written in such a way that NDoc can parse them. This is the best way to have the code itself documented, as the developers have to change their development practices very little, and you can generate pages that explain the code without having to look at the code.
Second, getting developers to write documentation is not easy, and getting them to do it might be an exercise in futility. This is where products like Fogbugz come into play. They will help manage the development with tickets, help track check ins, and when your done an iteration, generate release notes.
In conclusion, your best bet is to find the most effective solution that fits in with the devs existing process. If it impacts their development process very little, they will be more likely to adopt the system.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
As the years go by we get more and more applications. Figuring out if one application is using a feature from another application can be hard. If we change something in application A, will something in application B break?
We have been using MediaWiki for documentation, but it's hard to keep the data up-to-date.
I think what we need is some kind of visual map of everything. And the possibility to create some sort of reference integrity? Any ideas?
I'm in the same boat and still trying to sell my peers on Enterprise Architect, a CASE tool. It's a round trip tool - code to diagrams to code is possible. It's a UML centric too - although it also supports other methods of notation that I'm unfamiliar with...
Here are some things to consider when selecting a tool for documenting designs (be they inter-system communication, or just designing the internals of a single app):
Usability of the tool. That is, how easy is it to not only create, but also maintain the data you're interested in.
Familiarity with the notation.
A. The notation, such as UML, must be one your staff understands. If you try using a UML tool with a few people understanding how to use it properly you will get a big ball of confusion as some people document things incorrectly, and someone who understands what the UML says to implement either spots the error, or goes ahead and implements the erroneously documented item. Conversely more sophisticated notations used by the adept will confound the uninitiated.
B. Documentation isn't/shouldn't be created only for the documenters exclusive use. So those who will be reading the documentation must understand what they're reading. So getting a tool with flexible output options is always a good choice.
Cost. There are far more advanced tools than Enterprise Architect. My reasoning for using this one tool is that due to lack of UML familiarity and high pressure schedules, leaves little room to educate myself or my peers beyond using basic structure diagrams. This tool easily facilitates such a use and is more stable than say StarUML. (I tried both, StarUML died on the reverse engineering of masses of code -- millions of lines) For small projects I found StarUML adequate for home use, up until I got vista installed. Being opensource, it's also free.
With all that said, you will always have to document what uses what, that means maintaining the documentation! That task is one few companies see the value in despite its obvious value to those who get to do it. . .
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Jeffery Palermo says 'Classic WebForms More Mature Than ASP.NET MVC': "Is Classic WebForms More Mature Than ASP.NET MVC?".
It seems to be subjective, but what I want to know is, what exactly "mature" software is?
The answer is very subjective. But basically if the software can answer to most of these criteria (in no order of importance):
secure
reliable
actively maintained
has active community
field-proven
Then it can be considered "mature".
It is important to note that different clients would expect different levels of "maturity". A large corporation would demand that the software it uses is secure enough to protect its sensitive data, and that the software is supported by a support rep available 24/7. As opposed to a small private project of your own which you might care much less about security, and you do not need (nor can afford) a service package which includes 24/7 customer support.
So ,maturity differentiates according to the client, but the basic criteria remain the same.
Mature is when people have figured out how to deal with it.
(And we're talking about development platforms not about end-user apps, aren't we?)
For example, javascript only became mature with the introduction of prototype, jquery and the like.
Before that, people tend to code strange things they they'd regret.
So you're asking for subjective opinions on a subjective topic. :)
I would say, mature would add the following characteristic to a technology:
People know how to use it, know its possibilities and limitations
People know what the typical usage scenarios are, patterns, what are good usage scenarios for this technology so that it shows its best
People have found out how to deal with limitations/bugs, there is a community knowledge and help out there
The technology is trusted enough to be used not only by individuals but in productive commercial environment as well
Reduce Subjectivity by Developing a Measuring Tool for yourself.
My Criteria are for Business Software:
Feature Rich - handle lots of Business Rules
Flexible - Selectable Features via Parameters & Configuration
Stable - Few, if any bugs causing malfunction such as crashes
Well Documented - User and technical Documentation
User Friendly - as attested and recommended by users
Robust - Not very much fazed by events such as power failures and erroneous user input.
Installs & Runs "out of the box".
Take all the Criteria and place it in a spreadsheet with columns rating from 0 - 5 and do a rating by ticking the column corresponding to your rating of each criteria.
If overall score is 25 or better then the software is mature.
If the score is 15 to 24 then the software is average.
If below 15 then the software is immature.
Mature software has to be whatever you mean it to be. I don't think you will find an easy mechanism for measuring maturity, and everyone's definition is going to differ anyway.
It's always going to be a subjective view I'm afraid and therefore subject to a lot of argument.
I would say that mature software is stable, well documented, widely used and well tested.