How about letting some of these fixes trickle down to us 8.5 users?

Hi guys - just stuck my head round the door to see if anything had improved since I gave up on Sonar.
Apparently not.

Bitflipper I could not agree more.
It really is a total con trick to sell a product that genuinely has serious issues, even after seven previous "new" versions - some of the issues going back two or three versions - and not even attempting to service the clients for the previous still nto working properly version.
Hope that makes sense.

I`ve been happily trundling along with Another Daw for around six months and seen more bug fixes etc etc issued for free in that time than I got from Cake in years of faithful, expensive upgrading on my part.

Sorry to come on here just to moan.

Maybe one day they WILL go back to being the company they once were. 

gothic.angel

B San


All X1 has done is given me a greater appreciation for 8.5.3....

...DEFINITELY... I DO understand you...


...Sonar 8.5.3... the last REAL Sonar....... 

Ditto

bitflipper

BTW, readers might enjoy this article by Dan Goldstein, principle developer for MixCraft, relating the story of a particularly difficult bug. Acoustica is another small company that's been quietly accumulating fans via a customer-centric policy.

I agree - great read.

HumbleNoise

bitflipper

BTW, readers might enjoy this article by Dan Goldstein, principle developer for MixCraft, relating the story of a particularly difficult bug. Acoustica is another small company that's been quietly accumulating fans via a customer-centric policy.

I agree - great read.

To me, it seems like it isn't really a bug in Windows XP that turned out to be the culprit, but something in iLok's code not behaving properly! Let's face it: it only happened with ilOk plugs!

We have to stop supporting companies that use this stuff people...

R

I think the point of the article wasn't to point the finger at a particular hardware lok as the definite culprit but to illustrate how difficult it can be track down a bug.

Of course we all have agendas and sometimes it's best to leave them to ourselves..

eikelbijter

To me, it seems like it isn't really a bug in Windows XP that turned out to be the culprit, but something in iLok's code not behaving properly! Let's face it: it only happened with ilOk plugs!

We have to stop supporting companies that use this stuff people...

R

+1,000,000,000......  


...Against ANY sort of "system disturbing" dongle\iLock\imposition over legitimate users...


indeed, they only serve as annoying inconvenience to regular customers.... which is a paradox....


...ALWAYS buy your software.... NEVER support invasive copy protection systems (dongle keys in particular...)... NEVER...!!!  

...for five days no crash

Ain't it a sad commentary, Roby, that "five days without a crash" is the new standard of acceptance? Aren't you glad the airlines don't have a similar standard?

Well it's wishful thinking I guess, It's looks like we can't expect any move towards your original post bitflipper, here it is 3 pages and over a 1000 veiws and no one from Cakewalk has chimed in. I have noticed that they do chime in fairly quick to defend X1 sometimes within a few posts. Not saying that's bad but their silence is golden on this issue, tells me it ain't gonna happen.

my dollars worth.

mike_mccue

When ever a software dev defender makes excuses about how complicated the work is I wonder what other types of engineering or logistical projects they have experience with. They should try building a skyscraper or a space ship some day... yeah stuff happens... but excuses aren't excused in those fields.

Hang on a sec. I'm a programmer with over 26 years professional experience, 34 years if you include kid's stuff, and I studied at an engineering university. I'm not going to defend releasing bugging software or make any excuses for poor software, but absolutely nothing compares to the complexity of software. Other engineering is complex but each floor of a sky scrapper is essentially the same, each section of a bridge is essentially the same, CPU chips are automatically created from mathematics (software), things like new cars and aircraft are refinements of previous designs, but every bit of code that is written is unique.

Every major military project is held up by software and usually the first version is of limited functionality so it will actually work. Modern electronic engineering is largely just fitting pre made units together, a mobile phone is mostly software, not hardware.

There's a saying "if cities were built to the standard of software, the first strong breeze would destroy civilisation". I lived long enough to see many attempts at improving software engineering, but we are still using exactly the same tools as I first did 34 years ago.

So, I gather you actually haven't built a skyscraper or space ship[?]

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

:-)






edit to add forgotten ? mark

Brett

mike_mccue

When ever a software dev defender makes excuses about how complicated the work is I wonder what other types of engineering or logistical projects they have experience with. They should try building a skyscraper or a space ship some day... yeah stuff happens... but excuses aren't excused in those fields.

Hang on a sec. I'm a programmer with over 26 years professional experience, 34 years if you include kid's stuff, and I studied at an engineering university. I'm not going to defend releasing bugging software or make any excuses for poor software, but absolutely nothing compares to the complexity of software. Other engineering is complex but each floor of a sky scrapper is essentially the same, each section of a bridge is essentially the same, CPU chips are automatically created from mathematics (software), things like new cars and aircraft are refinements of previous designs, but every bit of code that is written is unique.

So you are saying that Hello World is more complex that a 747 with it's 6 million parts? Don't you think your comment is a tiny little bit of an over generalisation?

Modern electronic engineering is largely just fitting pre made units together

Like a lot of software. ;-)

There's a saying "if cities were built to the standard of software, the first strong breeze would destroy civilisation". I lived long enough to see many attempts at improving software engineering, but we are still using exactly the same tools as I first did 34 years ago.

vi? :-)

UnderTow

mike_mccue


So, I gather you actually haven't built a skyscraper or space ship.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

:-)

I see, when a subject expert makes an effort to respond to you, you reply with smart arse gibes. I guess if I had noticed any of your sixteen thousand previous posts I would have known not to bother responding to you.

UnderTow

Brett

Hang on a sec. I'm a programmer with over 26 years professional experience, 34 years if you include kid's stuff, and I studied at an engineering university. I'm not going to defend releasing bugging software or make any excuses for poor software, but absolutely nothing compares to the complexity of software. Other engineering is complex but each floor of a sky scrapper is essentially the same, each section of a bridge is essentially the same, CPU chips are automatically created from mathematics (software), things like new cars and aircraft are refinements of previous designs, but every bit of code that is written is unique.

So you are saying that Hello World is more complex that a 747 with it's 6 million parts? Don't you think your comment is a tiny little bit of an over generalisation?

No one has ever paid me to write a hello world programme. Of course I would not have compared complex software like Sonar to a wheelbarrow, surely I don't have to spell that out.
How many lines of code do think there are in a modern airliner?

Modern electronic engineering is largely just fitting pre made units together

Like a lot of software. ;-)

If you're "programming" a blog site. If you are alluding to modern application frameworks then the complexity just went up by several orders of magnitude.

There's a saying "if cities were built to the standard of software, the first strong breeze would destroy civilisation". I lived long enough to see many attempts at improving software engineering, but we are still using exactly the same tools as I first did 34 years ago.

vi? :-)

In my case (>.<) but I'm sure the Cakewalk team use an IDE.

Brett

mike_mccue


So, I gather you actually haven't built a skyscraper or space ship.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

:-)

I see, when a subject expert makes an effort to respond to you,

But you are not. That is his point. You are only an expert in one of the fields being compared.

UnderTow

UnderTow

Brett

mike_mccue


So, I gather you actually haven't built a skyscraper or space ship.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

:-)

I see, when a subject expert makes an effort to respond to you,

But you are not. That is his point. You are only an expert in one of the fields being compared.

UnderTow

Says who? Not me. Unless writing compilers or operating systems programmers are working in other fields.  Let mike_mccue makes his own bed.

Brett

No one has ever paid me to write a hello world programme.

Or build a skyscraper... ;-)

How many lines of code do think there are in a modern airliner?

This example alone invalidates your whole claim: However complex the software in a modern airliner is, it is only one part of the whole airliner. In other words, the airliner as a whole can never be less complex than the software that runs it. Logic 101.

vi? :-)

In my case (>.<) but I'm sure the Cakewalk team use an IDE.

Hah! Real men use ed!


Anyway, yes software can be very complex but some companies manage to release more stable software than others...

UnderTow

Brett says:

I see, when a subject expert makes an effort to respond to you, you reply with smart arse gibes. I guess if I had noticed any of your sixteen thousand previous posts I would have known not to bother responding to you.

That is not at all a smart ass jibe and I expect you are smart enough to see that.

I see you have jumped to a conclusion that you are right and I am to be dismissed... which I think serves as a fitting symbol of what I regard as the very worst trait of software development culture.

Originally I made a simple claim that amounts to this:

I believe soft ware apologists lack experience in other fields of complex engineering where delivery of a "product" is only accepted when said product functions.

Your response that Hi Rise levels are essentially the same and your statement that bridge segments are essentially the same suggests to me that you have very limited experience in either of those fields.

I am not being smart assed at all.

I don't think you, as a 34 year software industry veteran, have much experience in other fields of complex engineering. But because I do not know that for a fact I have asked you the question. (I see I forgot the question mark to emphasize the inflection)

I am accussing people in your position of too often operating in ignorance of the standards of quality control regarded as standard professional practice in other fields of engineering.

I am stating that the excuse making that software apologists routinely provide reveals that they think that what they do is more complicated than what other fields do.

I believe that this is proof that the apologists simply do not recognize that other fields have accomplished quality control standards that exceed the software industries standards even though the fields are equally as complicated.

I am stating that the software apologists do this because they simply do not know any better.

There's nothing smart assed at all about this very serious accusation I am making.

I am stating that many of the most experienced software engineers that provide software and firmware are wholly ignorant of the standards of professionalism that all the other engineers in the world take for granted.

I am also stating that, after having been a software customer for 30 years, I am growing weary of hearing this lame excuse.

Back in the early 1980's it seemed like an exciting new technology had to include the awkward growing pains and the acceptance of a new business paradigm. One learned to never expect to stop paying for software development. I have learned that I will probably never be satisfied with a software purchase because there seems to always be something that was forgotten, botched, or ill designed.

What I am saying is that after 30 years I no longer think that I should have to accept that paradigm and I am accusing all the people, who make apologies for the software industry, of being unaware of the standards that the rest of the engineering fields hold themselves too in a professional capacity.


I hope that was a little bit more clear to you.

best regards,
mike








 

UnderTow

Brett
 
How many lines of code do think there are in a modern airliner?

This example alone invalidates your whole claim: However complex the software in a modern airliner is, it is only one part of the whole airliner. In other words, the airliner as a whole can never be less complex than the software that runs it. Logic 101.

It was your example. You asked if a hello world programme was more complex than a 747 and I pointed out that aircraft contain a lot of code.

Brett says

"You asked if a hello world programme was more complex than a 747 and I pointed out that aircraft contain a lot of code."

No you did not. You responded by asking:

"How many lines of code do think there are in a modern airliner?"


You seem to be so accustomed to making excuses that you no longer even attempt to discuss or debate with reason... and then excuse your inability to communicate effectively with further excuses.

Which is indicative of what I am accusing software apologists of being so comfortable doing.

 

mike_mccue

Brett says:

I see, when a subject expert makes an effort to respond to you, you reply with smart arse gibes. I guess if I had noticed any of your sixteen thousand previous posts I would have known not to bother responding to you.

That is not at all a smart ass jibe and I expect you are smart enough to see that.

That's exactly what it was. It wasn't until I called you on it that you deigned to flatter me with a decent response. Don't bother, I'm not interested.

mike_mccue


So, I gather you actually haven't built a skyscraper or space ship[?]

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

:-)






edit to add forgotten ? mark

I've built skyscrapers,  schools,  hospitals,  oil refineries,  conventional power plants,  and nuclear power plants.  In my trade our motto is,  "We strive for perfection.  If perfection isn't attainable,  excellence will do!".    I understand that what I do isn't necessarily software engineering,  but if leaving bugs in software is an acceptable practice,  then people like myself in skilled trades are definitely held to a higher standard.  Mistakes are completely unacceptable.   Any mistake made in an oil refinery or a power plant can be catastrophic and lead to fatalities.    If software programmers were held to the same standard,  we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Brett says:

That's exactly what it was. It wasn't until I called you on it that you deigned to flatter me with a decent response. Don't bother, I'm not interested.

You seem entirely comfortable in your own private world of imagination.

Which is more of the same behavior that I accuse a software apologist such as yourself of indulging in.

You seem to enjoy dressing up in a cloak of invincibility.

I will suggest that what you are actually doing is protecting your self serving sensibilities behind a sieve of ignorance.







edit spelling

I'd like to be clear that I do not think that all software engineers indulge in the practice of apology.

I am fully aware that many software engineers engage with professional engineers in other fields and are fully aware that standards ARE accepted as standards and that quality control is an attainable goal.

best regards,
mike

Brett

UnderTow

Brett
 
How many lines of code do think there are in a modern airliner?

This example alone invalidates your whole claim: However complex the software in a modern airliner is, it is only one part of the whole airliner. In other words, the airliner as a whole can never be less complex than the software that runs it. Logic 101.

It was your example. You asked if a hello world programme was more complex than a 747 and I pointed out that aircraft contain a lot of code.

In reference to your mention of cars and aircraft. And even if it is my example, it still invalidates your claim.

Luckily Cakewalk don't rewrite unique code for each version of SONAR but build on previous designs just like car and aircraft manufacturers.

It always worries me when software engineers have so little grasp on logic...

UnderTow

kb420


I've built skyscrapers,  schools,  hospitals,  oil refineries,  conventional power plants,  and nuclear power plants.  In my trade our motto is,  "We strive for perfection.  If perfection isn't attainable,  excellence will do!".    I understand that what I do isn't necessarily software engineering,  but if leaving bugs in software is an acceptable practice,  then people like myself in skilled trades are definitely held to a higher standard.  Mistakes are completely unacceptable.   Any mistake made in an oil refinery or a power plant can be catastrophic and lead to fatalities.    If software programmers were held to the same standard,  we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

I did say I don't "defend releasing bugging software" and mentioned that there are a lot of problems with software. But I remind you that things like nuclear power plants and aircraft are operated by software which is held to a very high standard. It's not a matter of professionalism, the number of mistakes programmers make is a known metric and surprisingly constant. To achieve high standards takes a lot of time and lot of resources, which is why many projects are delayed because of software. A lot of companies aren't prepared to pay those costs and of course you get what you pay for.

mike_mccue

I am fully aware that many software engineers engage with professional engineers in other fields and are fully aware that standards ARE accepted as standards and that quality control is an attainable goal.

Although it is scary how often they don't:

http://www.newscientist.c...critical-software.html

UnderTow

"But I remind you that things like nuclear power plants and aircraft are operated by software which is held to a very high standard."

You are reminding us?

I brought that very fact up, Mr. Friendly, in the statement that you originally responded too.

You are talking in circles...

Brett

kb420


I've built skyscrapers,  schools,  hospitals,  oil refineries,  conventional power plants,  and nuclear power plants.  In my trade our motto is,  "We strive for perfection.  If perfection isn't attainable,  excellence will do!".    I understand that what I do isn't necessarily software engineering,  but if leaving bugs in software is an acceptable practice,  then people like myself in skilled trades are definitely held to a higher standard.  Mistakes are completely unacceptable.   Any mistake made in an oil refinery or a power plant can be catastrophic and lead to fatalities.    If software programmers were held to the same standard,  we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

I did say I don't "defend releasing bugging software" and mentioned that there are a lot of problems with software. But I remind you that things like nuclear power plants and aircraft are operated by software which is held to a very high standard. It's not a matter of professionalism, the number of mistakes programmers make is a known metric and surprisingly constant. To achieve high standards takes a lot of time and lot of resources, which is why many projects are delayed because of software. A lot of companies aren't prepared to pay those costs and of course you get what you pay for.

I understand what you are saying,  but in specific situations like Sonar X1 and even Live 8,  there has to be a better system of checks and balances.   Customers expect a working and fully functional product.  That's what they pay for.  So in this situation,  the customer isn't getting what they pay for.
    
IMHO,  it's fraudulent to release a product you know doesn't completely work,  fix some of what's wrong,  and then abandon it so that you can sell a newer product and start the cycle all over again.   I don't consider that fair and honest business,  and the only companies that can consistently get away with this type of behavior are software companies.    I'm not at all worried about it.    At some point,  these companies are going to have to make good on their promises.   At some point,  software users are going to hold these companies accountable for their shady business practices.    When that time comes,   only businesses that operate in good faith will be able to continue. 

mike_mccue
  
You are reminding us?

I brought that very fact up, Mr. Friendly, in the statement that you originally responded too.

You are talking in circles...

Intelligent people write in paragraphs that contain multiple sentences. They develop their thoughts over the paragraph, each sentence linking in with others until finally the paragraph crystallises a point. You seemed to have missed the point entirely, but I'm sure the others got it.

The fact that building systems and aircraft systems include software is contextual to the reality that they do.

If you think there is some point that is being missed... you have missed your opportunity to make the presentation.

The point that I have taken from your outbursts is that you arrived with the intention of being insulting, as evidenced by the insulting addendum to your first post in this thread and the subsequent opportunities you have made for yourself.

I acknowledge your insults and accept the fact that you have made them.

You have, with each post, uttered singular statements which do not provide any insights into whether or not you are able to sustain a train of thought long enough to have a meaningful discussion.

You have barely provided evidence that you can read.

:-)

Brett, Mike, everybody...there is no need to be contentious about it. We are, after all, engineers, not lawyers.

Brett's initial point is valid: "absolutely nothing compares to the complexity of software". Believe it or not, it's true.

Over the past 50 years a lot of heavy thinkers have been seriously trying to adapt the best practices of other engineering disciplines to software development, with only limited success. Although we have progressed beyond the early days of cowboy coders, the complexity of software has continued to increase exponentially, pushing an already-elusive target further and further away.

Although we'll always be improving the process (the profit motive and competition will continue to drive that bus), I honestly don't believe software development can ever become a true engineering discipline in the way mechanical or electrical engineering have.

I don't think Brett is an apologist. I know I certainly am not. I believe that as soon as you charge money for your software, you assume certain unavoidable obligations to your customers. You cannot promise perfection, only that you will doggedly pursue it. And in the end, if your best effort isn't good enough for them, they will abandon you for someone who does it better.

Very well said, bitflipper, very well said!

"absolutely nothing compares to the complexity of software". Believe it or not, it's true."

Hi Bit,
 I acknowledge your statement!!!

 I, however, disagree. I feel that there are many endeavors that combine many disciplines that are easily comparable. Many of these endeavors incorporate software as a subset. Many of these endeavors rely on chemistry, materials science, structural analysis, the logistics of acquiring  materials that actually conform to the chemistry and materials science and structural analysis that was prepared in anticipation on the project's implementation, the logistics of implementing the use of the materials, testing and quality control of implementation of materials. etc. etc. etc.

 Bit, I have the highest respect for both you and your personal standards of ethics and quality, but in the absence of some more detailed info I am going to stand by my estimation that building a full function skyscraper or a space ship (or high tech aircraft) is far more complicated than writing software.

very best regards,
mike

kb420

   
IMHO,  it's fraudulent to release a product you know doesn't completely work,  fix some of what's wrong,  and then abandon it so that you can sell a newer product and start the cycle all over again.   I don't consider that fair and honest business,  and the only companies that can consistently get away with this type of behavior are software companies.  

This is the crux of it.



kb420 did you used to play GangWars?

No.  I never played GangWars.

 bitflipper


Brett's initial point is valid: "absolutely nothing compares to the complexity of software". 


Believe it or not, it's true. Over the past 50 years a lot of heavy thinkers have been seriously trying to adapt the best practices of other engineering disciplines to software development, with only limited success. Although we have progressed beyond the early days of cowboy coders, the complexity of software has continued to increase exponentially, pushing an already-elusive target further and further away.

Hello bitflipper

Although tend to agree with many of your posts, and I'm sure if we sat down over a cup of coffee would find much to agree with in general, I am not so sure that we have "progressed beyond the early days of cowboy coders".  In many ways I think the situation is much worse today for three reasons.

Firstly, I think there are way more people who have access to developing software within the business world and the barriers to entry have been reduced (both in terms of tools available as well as the credentials required).

Secondly, I think the proliferation of so many tools that it's hard to be an expert in any single tool  without devoting yourself to that tool -- in which case you miss much of what else is going on.

Thirdly, I think the demands of the business and consumer world to have something newer, bigger, faster, better, sexier -- NOW -- and dealing with the above two points, has not only encouraged young cowboy coders to code that way, the climate has encouraged many experienced developers to operate that way too (although they can use their experience to make a case for "good enough" development, which is all pretty relative to the business situation but still smells of cowboy's (re)boots).

mike_mccue


"absolutely nothing compares to the complexity of software". Believe it or not, it's true."

Hi Bit,
I acknowledge your statement!!!

 I, however, disagree. I feel that there are many endeavors that combine many disciplines that are easily comparable. Many of these endeavors incorporate software as a subset. Many of these endeavors rely on chemistry, materials science, structural analysis, the logistics of acquiring  materials that actually conform to the chemistry and materials science and structural analysis that was prepared in anticipation on the project's implementation, the logistics of implementing the use of the materials, testing and quality control of implementation of materials. etc. etc. etc.

 Bit, I have the highest respect for both you and your personal standards of ethics and quality, but in the absence of some more detailed info I am going to stand by my estimation that building a full function skyscraper or a space ship (or high tech aircraft) is far more complicated than writing software.

very best regards,
mike

Hello Mike

I agree with you and bitflipper -- how's that for a wishy washy stance?  But actually I stand by my washyness by saying that a qualifying context makes the difference between your two opinions.  And that is that I don't think we can build a skyscraper using the time constraints and limitations on available (affordable) skill sets that are placed on many software development projects.


I think if we swapped that around, we'd see amazing skyscrapers developed in record time but that would be too dangerous for practical use, and we'd have robust software that is too expensive and takes too long to be released for the average consumer.


Just my two bits...

I think any comparisons between civil and software engineering is flawed because they are just too different. While building a bridge or a building is complex, the operating environment is well known and static. Even the few variables, things like expected weather, earthquakes etc are well understood and accounted for in the design. Not just that, but all the problems related to civil engineering are well known and well documented. Material strength, etc is well known and tried and tested formulas ensures that the design is sound.

In software engineering, it is quite different. The operating environment is infinitely changeable, and every single line out of 100's of thousands or millions of lines of code could have logic bugs. The codepaths that a running application take is based on many many variables, the possible combination of which is endless and impossible to test.

Add to this that the problems that software need to solve are getting exponentially more complex. Because of this, good software development processes and practices are a must. Older software like Sonar often still follow the old practices and after many years you end up with a broken product like Sonar.

I personally believe Sonar suffers from a lack of good development practices but that is just my speculation. The current state of Sonar points to all sorts of issues from a bad codebase (spaghetti code) + lack of proper code reviews and unit testing (fixing bugs results in unexpected new bugs), bad QA with insufficient test cases (major features are broken, like AudioSnap, ProChannel, and CW doesn't notice this), bad bug triaging (fixing trivial, non-critical bugs while leaving long-standing more critical bugs unfixed for years). Basically, due to all these bad practices, CW is no longer able to keep Sonar functional, and if my suspicions above are true, they will not be able to fix this problem anytime soon. Things are only going to get worse, and that is why I'm getting off this sinking ship (although still tied to it unfortunately due to older, unfinished projects).

mike_mccue


"absolutely nothing compares to the complexity of software". Believe it or not, it's true."

Hi Bit,
I acknowledge your statement!!!

Shame you ignored it when I first said it.

 I, however, disagree. I feel that there are many endeavors that combine many disciplines that are easily comparable. Many of these endeavors incorporate software as a subset. Many of these endeavors rely on chemistry, materials science, structural analysis, the logistics of acquiring  materials that actually conform to the chemistry and materials science and structural analysis that was prepared in anticipation on the project's implementation, the logistics of implementing the use of the materials, testing and quality control of implementation of materials. etc. etc. etc.

 Bit, I have the highest respect for both you and your personal standards of ethics and quality, but in the absence of some more detailed info I am going to stand by my estimation that building a full function skyscraper or a space ship (or high tech aircraft) is far more complicated than writing software.

very best regards,
mike

I see you're working on this concept of the paragraph, well done.

The point that I have taken from your outbursts is that you arrived with the intention of being insulting, as evidenced by the insulting addendum to your first post in this thread and the subsequent opportunities you have made for yourself.

I don't know what insulting addendum was in my first post. Maybe you can't count?

As I said earlier, if you had made an effort to engage me in the same way as I had then I would have taken you seriously. Instead you came out with smart arse gibes and rants that are barely grade school level literacy. Normally I wouldn't insult peoples' intelligence, especially in a forum that is dedicated to music, but if you're going to talk crap about a profession you know nothing about then refuse to acknowledge what's been said, then you're not going to be taken seriously.

Everything I had to say was in my first post, you know, the one before my first post.

Coffee house?

Ok, ok. This is it now! The code is old and it seems as if CW have built on the old code. No matter how earnestly they program away. They will never actually get it all working seemlessly. Reason being, its broke and they would need years to fix it. Even with Roland behind them. I don't think they have enough money or productivity to achieve this goal with in the timescales they set for themselves.

I think they should have scrapped the product (namely Sonar) and start all over again. I know, I know impossible I hear you cry. I would rather that then see the demise of Sonar even though they may have made a rod for their own back.

Lionshare:

Apple: Mr Jobs put alot of money into programmers somethihng like 2billion could be more. Now if the highest paid programmers are over at apple (iPad) Nano (iPhone) obvioulsy yhe highest paid will be the best. If you know your good at your job in an economy where things are tighter than tight what would you do as a programmer? Stay with a sinking ship? you go where the Wonga is!

Many companies and I gather that CW is a small company, sorry to say, your going to get squeezed out. And to me, it looks like that this is what is exactly happening.

So is it CW's fault...to some degree. paycut or more than a yearly cycle??? fixing bugs as you go or new code. Money rules at the end of the day and people have to eat so therefore you may become stuck. If I was a programmer (I have done some) I would be going to the big markets to get me some of that wonga! Sorry CW but its true. I remember them advertising for coders...

It's easy to read inbetween the lines and harder to define the truth!

Take Care!

SilkTone


I think any comparisons between civil and software engineering is flawed because they are just too different. While building a bridge or a building is complex, the operating environment is well known and static. Even the few variables, things like expected weather, earthquakes etc are well understood and accounted for in the design. Not just that, but all the problems related to civil engineering are well known and well documented. Material strength, etc is well known and tried and tested formulas ensures that the design is sound.
 

Hi Silk,

 Consider this idea. The building design may incorporate well established features in anticipation of changing weather, occasional fire, and a suitable foundation system, but the actual process of building the project will often occur under a wide and ever changing set of circumstances.

 For example;

 Every morning concrete is mixed out of materials that have a range of quality, character and consequences.

 On any given day a change in weather can effect the workmanship and materials.
 Work that is begun on a dry sunny day may suffer from a drenching downpour the very next day.

 The logistics of acquiring materials and storing them until use is an ever changing circumstance.
 
 In Florida we have several dozens types of fill sand... they do not all compact the same way.

 The lime used for cement is remarkably similar to dirt... it comes with all sorts of other components that effect the quality of the concrete that you make with it.

 Foundation designs are often modified as the construction project proceeds and excavation reveals the true details of what the foundation will sit upon.

 All of the mechanical fittings for the building need to be quality controlled and found to meet spec as they are installed.

 The mechanical specs of a building are always changing as the end user clients needs are more well defined... usually well after the first work order is processed.

 Stuff like drywall materials have to be inspected for changes in material.




 The list just goes on and on.... just like engineering just about anything that is made in the physical world.

 The point I am trying to make is that complicated building and fabrication projects are hardly made in a static environment.

 
 best regards,
mike

 

SilkTone


I think any comparisons between civil and software engineering is flawed because they are just too different. While building a bridge or a building is complex, the operating environment is well known and static. Even the few variables, things like expected weather, earthquakes etc are well understood and accounted for in the design. Not just that, but all the problems related to civil engineering are well known and well documented. Material strength, etc is well known and tried and tested formulas ensures that the design is sound.

This might be the case for some civil engineering projects but certainly not for all. A very good example of this is the underground metro line being built in Amsterdam. The problem with Amsterdam is that it sits on sandy mud and all the buildings are literally built on poles that sink deep into this mud. Without these poles the buildings would just sink. To make things a little harder, Amsterdam is below sea level so if you dig a hole, well it fills up with muddy water.

As if this wasn't enough, the city centre consist mainly of old buildings. Some as old as the 14th century! The wooden poles that these buildings are built on are not always in perfect condition as you can imagine. Of course none of these old buildings are allowed to move a single millimetre or they risk collapsing. (They placed little mirrors on all the buildings along the trajectory and shine lasers along them so that they know if any of the buildings moves at all). Boring through this mud under the old city centre to create a metro tunnel is neither trivial nor are the techniques used and the conditions well known or fully documented.

The tunnel "drills" used to make these tunnels are unique and were specifically designed for this project:



This drilling machine itself is probably more complex than most software projects.

One of the approaches they are using is literally freezing the ground mud with liquid nitrogen so that it is easier to drill through. Another approach they are using on the 19th century central station is to build a new concrete "table" foundation on poles below the existing building, quite a feat in itself, and then raising the whole building by a millimetre so that they can excavate below it:




And yes part of the project includes writing specific software to model the ground below Amsterdam but this is only one aspect of the vast and complex project.

Or how about the building of something like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? Is anyone hear truly going to claim that writing the Sonar software is more complex than designing and building that?

I think that people with no deep knowledge of fields outside of software engineering are underestimating the complexity of other fields and I remain with my point that Brett was making a huge over generalisation.

UnderTow

UnderTow you have an answer for everything...ahh...the power of the internet!

mudgel


Coffee house?

This thing is still up here?   

Dappa1


UnderTow you have an answer for everything...

It is rather easy if you stick to not making claims about things unless you are rather sure you can back them up. 

ahh...the power of the internet!

Actually my ex is involved in the project so I have been rather well informed on many of the aspects of that project. (The metro line, not the CERN project ).

UnderTow

is that a quib?

Undertow I like your posts especially of late your opinions are right on the ball!

After reading all this, It would be interesting to hear someone from CW respond to the OP question. I can understand why not, but, good luck. 

Dappa1


is that a quib?

No not at all! Well not at you in any case. But people (everywhere, not just on this forum) do have a tendency of going on about things they have clearly no idea bout.

Undertow I like your posts especially of late your opinions are right on the ball!

Thanks.

UnderTow

But people (everywhere, not just on this forum) do have a tendency of going on about things they have clearly no idea bout.

It even has a name: The Dunning-Kruger effect.  Even though I know about that effect, I still blather on about things I have no idea about. Like the Dunning-Kruger effect.

UnderTow

Dappa1


is that a quib?

No not at all! Well not at you in any case. But people (everywhere, not just on this forum) do have a tendency of going on about things they have clearly no idea bout.

Undertow I like your posts especially of late your opinions are right on the ball!

Thanks.

UnderTow

Yes, my Bullsh!t meter starts going off many times especially when people start talking about costs and economics and stuff.   They will just throw out a number that can't possibly be possible, and then expect you to swollow.

tarsier

But people (everywhere, not just on this forum) do have a tendency of going on about things they have clearly no idea bout.

It even has a name: The Dunning-Kruger effect.  Even though I know about that effect, I still blather on about things I have no idea about. Like the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I'm an expert at using the Dunning-Kruger effect... 

and the amsterdam north-south line is way over budget & late...

I believe you need to develop software to really realize how complex it is. And the civil engineering examples that people cite are following very well-thought-out processes with strict checks and balances all along the way. My whole point is that something as complex as a DAW needs very good practices and processes in place if the idea is to keep it in a state where it is stable, maintainable and extensible.

Yes as I said I have no real idea what Sonar's source code looks like, but the symptoms we see today fits the problems I mention perfectly.

Kroneborge

Yes, my Bullsh!t meter starts going off many times especially when people start talking about costs and economics and stuff.   They will just throw out a number that can't possibly be possible, and then expect you to swollow.


Do you know my girlfriend or something

UnderTow

some people shoot from the hips...its comfrotable for them to do so. In an age of knowledge, we seem to know nothing...if you dont believe me when your ill and in need of a Doctor ask for his advice!

SilkTone


I believe you need to develop software to really realize how complex it is.

Of course and I speak from experience or I wouldn't even be commenting here. I am also quite sure that the exact same thing can be said about any engineering project which seems to be forgotten by the proponents of software complexity.

And the civil engineering examples that people cite are following very well-thought-out processes with strict checks and balances all along the way. My whole point is that something as complex as a DAW needs very good practices and processes in place if the idea is to keep it in a state where it is stable, maintainable and extensible.

Oh absolutely and I agree with what you have been saying. Well-thought-out processes and strict checks and balances is needed for any complex project be it software or other. It is one of the very first thing you learn when you study computer science and software engineering.

What I take issue with is the over simplification and over generalisation that some present. (Not you SilkTone). And, well, the lack of logic too. My Hello World example was chosen because it irrefutably invalidates the claim that "nothing compares to the complexity of software" in a way that should be absolutely clear to anyone.

Remember my original relevant comment was simply: "Don't you think your comment is a tiny little bit of an over generalisation?" Not only is this comment absolutely true but it let Brett off the hook and allowed him an easy way out of the logical impasse he created for himself. He chose to bulldoze ahead and ignore common sense and logic in favour of his own preconceived ideas. Too bad...

Yes as I said I have no real idea what Sonar's source code looks like, but the symptoms we see today fits the problems I mention perfectly.

Indeed.

UnderTow

Dappa1


UnderTow

some people shoot from the hips...its comfrotable for them to do so.

Some people can get away with it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iK2ndUyKE8#t=40s

UnderTow

:-)

I worked for this company for a year as a design draftsman when I was a college  kid:

http://www.figgbridge.com/

I grew up working after school by starting here at age 13 in an informal apprenticeship that lasted thru college:

http://www.matherseng.com/default.htm

It even has a name: The Dunning-Kruger effect. Even though I know about that effect, I still blather on about things I have no idea about. Like the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Good one!
It's true that everybody thinks what they do for a living is complicated, simply because they understand those complications better than others outside their field.

I don't consider, say, cooking to be a complex subject, but it's actually a science. A serious cook can spend a lifetime studying and learning more about it. It's the largest category in the book business. TV channels are devoted to it. Obviously, it's much deeper than I can appreciate even though I am competent to fix a meal that won't kill you.

But when I talk about the unparalleled complexity of software, it's not the number of details or the depth of knowledge that makes it so. The actual syntax of a programming language is very simple. It has to be, because computers are unbelievably stupid. And, as with other engineering disciplines, the most commonly-used techniques are well-known and time-tested. Anyone can learn to write a computer program in an afternoon!

The complexity comes from the number of ways a program can execute. Consider an ultra-simple program that outputs "hello, world!". It is trivial to write one that is 100% reliable (assuming external components are working right).

Now introduce a simple decision into the code: something like "if it's Friday, say 'TGIF!', otherwise say 'hello, world!". By doing this you have doubled the number of possible execution paths from 1 to 2. (I have simplified this example, because merely determining if its Friday may involve a few dozen if-then-else constructs.)

Every one of these either/or decisions doubles the number of execution paths. Such simple binary decisions are what distinguishes a computer program from a simple list of instructions, and despite their simplicity they are the basis for all computer "intelligence".

As you can imagine, you need a WHOLE lot of them in any sophisticated program, with each one doubling the number of possible ways the program can behave. Even the simplest programs have many thousands of them, and truly sophisticated software will have millions of them. The number of possible execution paths becomes literally astronomical.

And we haven't even factored in the nearly-infinite variability of input data yet, nor taken into account all the external factors such as interactions with third-party libraries and the operating system.

So when I say it's complex, I am coming from a purely mathematical perspective. It doesn't mean that what I do for a living is harder than what you do, or that I should be cut some slack because of it. It doesn't mean I'm smarter than you (there are plenty of idiots writing software, trust me!). It only means that the things I construct will always have a degree of variability that's so huge a human can't really wrap his mind around it.