|
In the industry I work in (aviation) first it's shipping it bug free. Second will be on time.
I feel that its very much industry dependent... Thats why you have formal testing in banking and aviation industries. Other industries not so much.
On time before the market releases other products(software) before you.
On time in order to make a profit. We all know the penalties that envolves not delivering your project on time.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."
<< please vote!! >>
|
|
|
|
|
Bug free? My bosses are not used to getting applications that work. They have a nice collection of candidates for the Hall of Shame. They probably think it must be that way, as long as they get their stuff quick (= cheap) enough. Testing or anything else that takes more time usually is 'too expensive'. They will probably never learn that buying a really rotten program at 50% of the price still is a 100% waste of time and money.
And from the clouds a mighty voice spoke:
"Smile and be happy, for it could come worse!"
And I smiled and was happy
And it came worse.
|
|
|
|
|
R. Erasmus wrote: We all know the penalties that envolves not delivering your project on time
We also know the commercial implications of shipping a POS. Delivery on time but full of bugs can destroy your company image far, far faster than late shipping.
In the world of hardware, shipping a buggy product can cost a company billions: think of the cost of recall and fix work. One company I worked for did just that with a new Visual Display Terminal (pre PC days) - the cathode ray tube failed after two months use. The cost of getting engineers to site, and fitting all new tubes was twice the company annual turnover. Fortunately the company survived, but it drove home a lesson: Test it, testing again, and only then think about shipping it when you have also got someone else to test it. Twice.
Software is the same - just you don't need to send an engineer.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
Even when we ship bug-free (close to zero bugs), our boss thisnks - Hey that was pretty easy work you got!
// ♫ 99 little bugs in the code,
// 99 bugs in the code
// We fix a bug, compile it again
// 101 little bugs in the code ♫
|
|
|
|
|
|
your boss live in the pink world ;}
d{^__^}b - it's time to fly
|
|
|
|
|
shipping in time , and bug free in not only the things to achieve , it should have a nice look and feel too , we try to be the best among the competitors
pk
modified 14-Nov-11 4:20am.
|
|
|
|
|
Its very important to fulfill all the four points when releasing an app. 
A friend walks in when everyone else walks out...
|
|
|
|
|
The following is true for custom solutions:
- Being late is bad for business, having small bugs is acceptable if you show you are fixing and releasing often.
- Having a "working" software is a necessity, by working we mean getting the basic job done.
- Implementing the full feature set in the initial release is not cost/time effective as the users will generally only use 70% of the feature set anyway.
Its the man, not the machine - Chuck Yeager
If at first you don't succeed... get a better publicist
If the final destination is death, then we should enjoy every second of the journey.
|
|
|
|
|
No,most probably it should not is not possible to release app bug free in its first version (IMHO).
so i am going with to provide planned features and it should be the first preference from my point of view.
modified 14-Nov-11 2:17am.
|
|
|
|
|
Pritesh Aryan wrote: it is not possible to release app bug free in its first version
Yes it is!
Why should the first version be any more prone to bugs than any other version? If you can ship V2 bug free, then you should be able to ship V1 in the same condition.
Admittedly, it rarely happens, but that doesn't mean you can't aim for it.
Saying "it is not possible to release app bug free in its first version" is just saying "I can't be bothered to test this properly - let the users do it"
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
ok,..i should have to use word probably i think.
actually English is not my first language so i can't express my exact ideas or views over here .
modified 14-Nov-11 2:47am.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep!
(I dunno who downvoted you, but since it is modified, I have compensated)
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
