12 Jun
2013
12 Jun
'13
5:59 p.m.
> If I am in a position of having to use such a
machine, then how
> satisfied am I likely to be with software written on a better
> machine, and NEVER REALLY TESTED on a machine like mine?
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013,
Mouse wrote:
Now now. Just because it was written on a beefier
machine doesn't mean
it wasn't tested on its target environment. That 8051 code was tested
on 8051s, not on the machine I wrote it on. The Android code was
tested on the target hardware.
true
If the testing is properly thought out, not just handing it over to
company cheerleaders.
I'm not really building a strawman so much as continuing my gripes about
Microsoft in the 1980s and 1990s, when they were peddling a lot of
saftware that was bordering on unusable on any configuaration other than
what they had used in development, and not tested at all on lesser
configurations. "yes, the CGA and EGA drivers will work. But we've never
tried them." The Windows 3.10 "Beta Test" consisted entirely of
soliciting praise from selected users. They did NOT want to hear about
any problems or issues (such as SETUP locking up the machine if it ever
hit a disk error)
Alternatively, and not suitable for your example, IFF development CAN be
done on the target platform, then doing at least SOME of it there will get
the programmers to have greater familiarity with the target platform
(again, MICROS~1 from 1985 to 1995)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com