Re: The Revenge of the Geeks

From: BGB <cr88192_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:16:13 -0600
Message-ID: <ke4qlt$fke$1_at_news.albasani.net>



On 1/27/2013 6:40 PM, Arne Vajh°j wrote:
> On 1/27/2013 1:47 PM, BGB wrote:
>> On 1/27/2013 5:46 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> Usually in the enterprise world you have little or no leeway as to how
>>> systems talk to each other. You may have a few options to choose from,
>>> but rolling your own is looked upon askance.
>>>
>>
>> well, this is where the whole "mandatory interop or orders from above"
>> comes in. in such a case, people say what to do, and the programmer is
>> expected to do so.
>>
>> but, I more meant for cases where a person has free say in the matter.
>>
>> and, also, a person still may choose an existing option, even if bad,
>> because it is the least effort, or because it is still locally the best
>> solution.
>>
>> like, rolling ones' own is not required, nor necessarily always the best
>> option, but can't necessarily be summarily excluded simply for sake of
>> "standards", as doing so may ultimately just make things worse overall.
>
> It almost can.
>
> If you go non standard and problems arise, then you are in
> deep shit.
>

depends on costs...

if "liability" is involved, or the functioning of the software is "mission critical" or something, then there is more reason for concern.

for many types of apps though, hardly anyone gives a crap how any of it works internally anyways, and people can pretty much do whatever.

(like, if it crashes or breaks violently, oh well, the user will start it up again, and at worst probably the user will think less of the product if it is too much of a buggy piece of crap, ...).

granted, this is generally a reason to test things, like to verify that they basically work, and try to debug cases where things are prone to crash or otherwise go terribly wrong, ... Received on Mon Jan 28 2013 - 04:16:13 CET

Original text of this message