I wonder when software developers of the world will apologise for systematic under-evaluation of time required to finish the project, failing projects, state of end-point security, software patents.
That, in my opinion, is one of the main objectives I have in using "agile development". Instead of looking over a project and providing the business with an inaccurate estimate of how long it will take, I offer the business a rough relative sizing of different features, and real-time insight into the pace at which we are progressing. Then the customer can form their own opinions on whether the next feature is "worth it" or not, and what to do if the project appears not to be meeting its objectives.
You also raised issues of end-point security: a very valid point I have no answer for. And you raise software patents, but there I think your concern is misplaced: as far as I can tell, software developers of the world have been quite vocal in explaining the harm done by software patents -- but the legal and legislative communities do not seem to be listening.
But I'm imagining that medical community also tries their best to a) push state of knowledge forward b) safely apply known best practices while curing patients, thus acting in patients best interest. This two goals are compatible in long term and conflict in short term: you can't really apply experimental treatments or "experimental diagnosis" to patients outside of research programs, even in case when it could potentially be in patients best interest. Do authors expect researchers to push boundaries faster or maybe they expect practitioners to apply unchecked knowledge?
Article tone and title are, in my opinion, very unreasonable.
Comments
I wonder when software developers of the world will apologise for systematic under-evaluation of time required to finish the project, failing projects, state of end-point security, software patents.
Sincerely yours, software developer.
Probably when managers and customers accept their responsibility in those issues, ie never.
I've been trying, for years.
That, in my opinion, is one of the main objectives I have in using "agile development". Instead of looking over a project and providing the business with an inaccurate estimate of how long it will take, I offer the business a rough relative sizing of different features, and real-time insight into the pace at which we are progressing. Then the customer can form their own opinions on whether the next feature is "worth it" or not, and what to do if the project appears not to be meeting its objectives.
You also raised issues of end-point security: a very valid point I have no answer for. And you raise software patents, but there I think your concern is misplaced: as far as I can tell, software developers of the world have been quite vocal in explaining the harm done by software patents -- but the legal and legislative communities do not seem to be listening.
Yeah, we do what we can, as good as we can.
But I'm imagining that medical community also tries their best to a) push state of knowledge forward b) safely apply known best practices while curing patients, thus acting in patients best interest. This two goals are compatible in long term and conflict in short term: you can't really apply experimental treatments or "experimental diagnosis" to patients outside of research programs, even in case when it could potentially be in patients best interest. Do authors expect researchers to push boundaries faster or maybe they expect practitioners to apply unchecked knowledge?
Article tone and title are, in my opinion, very unreasonable.