12 Feb
2010
12 Feb
'10
12:39 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Russ Bartlett
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 9:19 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ...
[snip]
In the early days when we wrote programs they were written onto coding
forms.? Once punched onto 80 column cards we would check each card to
ensure that had been key punched correctly.? Checking an 8000
statement? program took time.? Once checked we would have it listed
(used little machine time).? We would then dry run through the program
looking for logic errors.? Having done that we would have it compiled.
Typically there would be a couple of development slots or so a week for
testing so we had ensure that we had done due diligence.? If it
compiled we would schedule a test slot and run against test data.
Debugging consisted of analyzing dumps and correcting the code.
Contrast this against interactive source debuggers.? Today machine time
is inexpensive and many compiles and test shots may be performed in a
day.? "Workbench" tools allow the programmer to run
their program without even hitting the mainframe.? A totally different
world.
And yet, despite those inexpensive tools and resources, one of my most persistent
challenges as a test manager at a certain large software company was to convince
developers that they should do local builds (which could be done incrementally) before
checking in their changes. Some devs were good about 'buddy builds' and the like,
but usually only after some test manager they had encountered in their careers managed to
convince them that the small amount of time it took to do a build was minimal cost
compared to the productivity hit of a broken main build.
One of the tactics I used to educate one team was a public recognition of 'he/she who
broke the build' - a rubber chicken hung from that dev's office relight until
either the end of a week or until someone else broke the build. One dev came to my office
steaming mad about it - he thought this was childish and a waste of his time. I pointed
out that by breaking the build, he was wasting *everyone's* time, including his and
mine. He eventually became one my staunchest supporters regarding QA practices.
And yes, I had my experience with punched cards - FORTRAN IV. One of the best habits I
ever developed was sequence numbers. -- Ian