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. 

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.

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..

...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?

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.

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

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.

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 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








 

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


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.

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

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.

"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...

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.