Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 12 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking for examples where a human-based service replaced an automated one. For example, machine translation (although suboptimal in quality) largely replaced human translation in many areas -- can anyone think of where the opposite has occurred (especially with regard to today's industry)?
Edit: Before you downvote because this doesn't have the keyword C++, my reasoning is that programmers invariably create these technologies, and programmers are the ones who are either 1) displaced by the revival of human service, or 2) asked to somehow integrate the human element in a service. When there are questions like this one, it doesn't make sense to downvote this (unless you downvoted that, too).
reCaptcha is, I think, a direct counter-example to your machine translation example (since it's a form of visual translation, so to speak),
perhaps google image labeller counts
I recall something about yahoo running a "humans do simple tasks online for you cheaply, in the place of cpu cycles" scheme.
Crowdsourcing in general might be something similar to what you're thinking of.
Perhaps not the most exciting examples, but certainly among the most common--used everyday by pretty much everyone. Non-trivial as well.
Electronic Stability Control (braking-steering control in many (most?) automobiles
Auto-focus in some digital cameras.
It is an unlikely situation because for a machine to have been given the responsibility in the first place you would expect it to have been sufficiently good/cheap/etc at the task. So for it to then be replaced by a human, the human approach would need to have some how got better or cheaper at a faster rate than the technology driven one.
That's not to say that there isn't an example of this of course. I think it is an interesting question.
I've heard there are CAPTCHA-resolving centers in India. That may be a lie though.
Actually, I have an interesting example of this.
A few years ago I was working for a company writing a Dive School System for a Hotel in Sharm El Sheikh (in Egypt) along with a new "front of house" system. We were trying to come up with a fast check-in system for checking in an entire busload of divers arriving from the airport, the thing is, in Egypt labor is very very cheap, and the end it was more costly to do this with a computer system, than to continue with the old manual system of simply having 15-20 staff doing the checking in.
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 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Currently I am working on porting a benchmark application to another system. I am working alone, so I am frustrated about which software methodology I really have to use. Please give me some ideas.
I am going to assume you're wondering which Agile approach to use on your project as you tagged your question accordingly.
Agile is mainly about:
Delivering working software continuously and regularly
Aiming at technical excellence and avoiding technical debt
Improving the way we work and retrospecting regularly
I'd say whatever you use, even your very own approach to software development, if you can check those three items from the list, then you're pretty much Agile to me. Some people need strict guidelines and artifacts and that's fine, they help people become Agile but are far from being mandatory despite the dogmas out there.
Here's how I would approach your situation.
Take a step back and try to identify the most important features or abilities of this benchmarking application. By most important, I mean those features that the people using it in the end cannot live without. Once you have a list of those, put them on post-it notes, index cards, trello, jira or whatever tool you want to use.
Split each of those features into full-stack chunks of functionality that are business driven. I'm not talking about technical tasks here, but smaller features usable by actual people. I usually opt for the "Grandma Driven" approach here, asking myself "would grandma be able to understand what I'm trying to do?". It's just to make sure I'm focusing on a full stack feature and not a technical task like "populate database". One way to see this is also by applying dimensional planning to each of the features you identified (http://www.xpday.net/Xpday2007/session/DimensionalPlanning.html).
Set yourself an iteration length (I usually go for 1 or max 2 weeks when I'm working alone) and get to work one small item at a time. Don't write code for later, only what you need to solve the problem at hand. Quality is not an option. Focus on good coding and testing practices.
At the end of your iteration, check how many features you implemented and put that number somewhere on a chart, in a google spreadsheet or whatever. This will help you see if you're on track. Get feedback from colleagues or any potential users of the system and reflect on that feedback. It's not because you're porting to another platform that you can't make it better.
If you end up not having small enough granularity with what's left or not enough stuff in your list of things to do, spend some time repeating steps 1 to 3.
At the end of each iteration, keep tracking how many items you did just to see if you still have a good enough pace. If not, ask yourself why and change something in the way you work or get help. Again, your main focus is to make progress and deliver software that works at the end of each iteration.
It might not answer your question and I know I didn't give you an answer of the type, use kanban, scrum or whatever but I truly believe it's not appropriate in your specific case and would only generate overhead and boredom for you.
Hope that helps anyway, good luck with your project.
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
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.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
What would be the best way to bring people back to "their first love", i.e. programming, from other roles, e.g. sales, management, support, testing, etc.
This may become an issue given the current state of the economy.
I'm not talker about the CEO who last programmed ALGOL using punch cards, but someone who has more recently moved away from programming into a role that they realise is not for them.
When is it too long "away from programming" for someone to make the switch back and make a useful contribution?
I don't think the time away should be used to define whether a person is ready to come back. I was a dev for a long time, moved into management, and then into executive management, and finally decided I had to come back to development. The key to my ability to do it was that while I was "away", I was still following the industry closely and I still did little side projects to keep my skills (and my lust for development) sharp.
So, I was away for almost ten years and I am back at it and having a blast.
HTH,
Colby Africa
You can always come back.
It's more a matter of; how long will it take to ramp back up?
I'm afraid the unhelpful answer is that it depends entirely on the person.
Just as I would never judge someone by how long they've been in the industry, I also wouldn't judge on how long they've been out of it - if they can be a useful member of the team and contribute, then that's all that matters.
If the person realises he's wrong at the new non-programming position, then "coming back" probably works even after quite some time. He might even be a better developer than before, since he had some helpful insight somewhere else, probably towards the "bottom line".
If not, if he's being demoted back to development monkey, then probably a single minute is tool long.
All in all it's a dynamic process. I've seen people changing roles in the lapse of 2 years, when in the beginning they seemed stuck to programming and did not feel good doing "the managment thingy" when later they could not develop properly anymore, liked the job they were now doing, and said they'll never get back.
And then of course, it's a personality thing: Personality of the person, and personalities of the surroundings: If somebody out of a group get's their leader, it might be harder to get back into the lines.
I hope we have learned from the Y2K era when many people from liberal arts areas were brought into IT to try and address a shortage of IT personnel. I am not saying people from other fields can't make great programmers, but I think they have to at least have the logic/problem solving skills and some training.