Vitaliy wrote: > From: "Olin Lathrop" >> Vitaliy wrote: >>> I think that a reputation of superior quality should be a byproduct >>> of the way a company does things. I am strong believer in the >>> theory that "quality is free". Shoddy work costs far more than >>> doing things right the first time. >> >> To a point. After that point you are adding cost with less benefit >> in return. Everything is a tradeoff. [...] > > Olin, I'm traveling and don't have much time to address this > properly, but basically the problem is that you equate "quality" with > "goldplating". > > I understand "quality" to mean "conformance to requirements". If you > get a chance, pick up a copy of "Quality is Free" by Phlip Crosby. Quality of software development is partly about the amount and impact of the bugs in the product. The likelihood that there is a bug that in some situation causes a "non-conformance" is pretty big in a complex application, and software engineering is partly about keeping this likelihood under the acceptable (but usually not quite specified, in the sense of "measurable") threshold. Up to a certain degree, writing good code results in cheaper code, among others by keeping the bug count low. But above a certain level, making the code more bug-free results in much more expensive code without any other significant advantage. That work then isn't free -- but it would be required if "absolute" conformance to requirements were necessary. With your current practices (which is valid for just about everybody), there is still quality improvement possible (it's always possible to improve). You don't go there, because it isn't free and you don't have the resources to spend. This is where you set the balance of the tradeoff. Gerhard -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist