|
Damn right!
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
1. Because the development cost would be far too high to develop anything.
2. It is nearly impossible decently calculate the risk, developers are not "material" that can have a measured strength or reliability. (hence #1)
3. Many suppliers already do deliver some sort of warranty, based on a a certain amount of free "bugfixing", guaranteed passing of test scenarios, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
Strangely enough, those are pretty much exactly the arguments given by both the British car industry, and the British motorcycle industry shortly before their Japanese equivalents arrived on these shores and the subsequent disappearance of the native manufacturers as going concerns...
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey guys,
As we all know that nobody is perfect, and deadlines are always a b, If I had the time to finish my project without any pressure i would have said yes, but I have to say know 
|
|
|
|
|
As a hobbyist(all my bugs are in software I developed and I am the only consumer of) , I would have thought the results would be on the yes side of the question.
I find this split in opinion interesting.
David
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not at all surprised. It reflects the openness of the question.
A warranty is usually offered on something with a narrow set of use cases. The warranty is void if you deviate. But, in those cases deviation is concrete and clear. With software it's more broad and abstract. For instance, who's bug is it if two application drivers conflict?
My vote is yes, because a limited warranty is still a warranty. You may not be able to offer a warranty to be completely compatible with every system configuration for the next year, but you certainly can for security issues.
|
|
|
|
|
David C# Hobbyist. wrote: I find this split in opinion interesting.
I believe the 'Yes' side had a slight lead yesterday, but now the votes shifted to a slight lead on the 'No' side. It is still a close race.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
They should provide warranties as long as they can test the code in the expected environment - For example, a programmer who wrote a firmware for one type of hardware should offer a warranty.
Web Developers for example may offer a warranty, too - But only in the environment they have tested the App in (Otherwise we'd have hamsters keeping CP Netscape Navigator-compatible).
You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colon."
|
|
|
|
|
Bostik have the right idea. They say they have no control over how the user uses their product. Software is a bit like glue in that respect.
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
|
|
|
|
|
Why Software Developers should offer code warranty. As long as they meet the requirement, why they be questioned. Off course any pure software development should go the whole processing of SDLC[^]. Other than this why they be liable for their code. When they deliver the product someone(project manager/product manager along with the stake holders approved it. This is the way it goes IMHO.
Please leave the Coders
|
|
|
|
|
Developers should offer warranties, for a price. This should encourage better code from the developer because they understand they will be required to fix the code. The warranty should only cover the fixing of the code and not be liable for its use in an unknown/untested environment.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes a warrantee is a good idea. it also helps define bug vs desired feature and opinion.
The company I work for offers a 1 year warranty.
Any bugs after a year they may still fix, but its a painless way to not have to say if they wanted a feature they should have asked for it a year ago.
|
|
|
|
|
...holding a company directly financially liable for a buggy product is (IMHO) the only sure-fire way to ensure that management gives due importance to the effort required to properly build and test software. Software products often tend to be rushed out the door in order to meet the requirement that the company establish market share early. And all too often, this happens at the expense of quality.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Amen. The only reason most software out there is of such poor quality is that no-one is liable for it.
|
|
|
|
|
It's sad fact that "release now, fix later" has become the mantra for many early stage companies. I've actually heard managers deferring stability and feature completeness to V2 and V3 because (and I quote), "Nobody takes V1.0 seriously."
On the flip side, you have Google, where robust products remain in Beta for an extended period of time because nobody's holding a gun to their head.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
If a customer wants warranties, they must pay more. They must accept the fact that considerable time and efforts will be devoted to "useless" things like writing tests, refactorings etc.
Quality and warranties don't appear out of thin air. They are the result of hard work. And money, obviously.
“Today is the first day of the rest of your life.”
|
|
|
|
|
Athari wrote: considerable time and efforts will be devoted to "useless" things like writing tests
You don't test code?
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. We do offer a warranty for our software, and we also tests the software in many ways (we have a Beta Tester), but going deeply with unit testings and others will definitely change the delivery time. In my experience no real bugs but instead customers that want to change some screens and also the logic ... this seems to be minor but it introduced others bugs, and this is very annoying.
|
|
|
|
|
Let's face it: software is the only industry apart from medicine where nobody expects perfection (or even "actually works") and doesn't complain if they don't get it. Or indeed are even willing to pay again for the same experience!
Why? Why should we have a "special status" and "the right" to sell shoddy goods? If a car manufacturer makes a lemon, it's their fault, and their cost to repair. If the tin of beans you buy contains a mouse, they get sued.
How can we be expected to be taken seriously as a profession if we allow ourselves to release cr@p? Yes, I know, you don't have time. Yes, I know, management won't let you do it properly. So perhaps we need legislation to allow us to have a change of attitude: if management get charged each time we release buggy code, perhaps they will start listening and letting us improve the way things are done.
That and it might scare some of the absolute retards out of our "profession" - and if you don't think there are any, then I'm sorry - but you are in that group. See here: http://www.codeproject.com/feature/weirdandwonderful.aspx[^]
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
|
|
|
|
|
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Let's face it: software is the only industry apart from medicine or law where nobody expects perfection (or even "actually works") and doesn't complain if they don't get it. Or indeed are even willing to pay again for the same experience!
FTFY.
|
|
|
|
|
I had forgotten the legal industry.
Gawd knows I try hard enough to forget it!
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
Would you buy a car that was built off of the requirements that developers normally get?
I say the answer is "it depends".
Solid, known requirements, priced to support SDLC, then I'm inclined to give a yes opinion.
Otherwise, no.
Real life involves trade offs and equilibriums (of millions of software developers),
and the market has settled on the current state of affairs.
If customers could get warranties/guarantees for the same price,
they surely would demand it. Or they could offer developers a premium
for warrantees in the current environment.
But the defacto supply/demand has led to lower priced software (get it done!)
and the absense of guarantees (usually). So it really doesn't matter what I say/want.
|
|
|
|
|
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Albert Einstein
He clearly anticipated the computer age and the infestation of mindless evil colloquially referred to as "users".
Now - on the other hand, some sort of warranty should be given about the quality of advice and frustration level occurred when the "help desk" is outsourced.
Note to Virgin Mobile: Die! Die! Die!
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
there are too many parameters at play.
what if the code is running on an unintended platform? do we ever get to end of life the code? how was the code being used?
in general yes you should be responsible for your code but you are also responsible for running a business as well.
you want something inspirational??
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
