• Tim (unregistered)

    Please, won't anyone think of the children, erm, I mean customers, who spend their hard earned money on this cr@p and then waste their time trying to make it work?

    This is a perfect example of why nobody -- not your rich uncle, not Uncle Sam -- should bail out a failing business. It just leads to more pain, long term. Plus, it kills the reward for the other companies, who are trying to do the right thing but getting undercut by the company that doesn't have to earn a living.

  • (cs) in reply to Chris V
    Chris V:
    What is this nonsense about Microsoft not testing its software before it ships. I worked at Microsoft as a tester. And yes, we did test continuously before our software shipped.

    I think the point is that the idiot read somewhere "Microsoft doesn't test before it ships" and thinking that if Microsoft does it, then HIS company should do it too.

  • Bill (unregistered) in reply to Chris V
    Chris V:
    What is this nonsense about Microsoft not testing its software before it ships. I worked at Microsoft as a tester. And yes, we did test continuously before our software shipped.
    ... and then, we shipped it anyway.
  • (cs)

    Shouldn't the header rather say

    "Test No>>T<< Software"

    ?

  • (cs) in reply to Blue Collar
    Blue Collar:
    I totally agreen, and the worst part about it, it's usually some rich kid/guy's hobby shop for feeling important and dabbling in technology. Little do they know they are playing with people's careers, their livelihood, and that is just plain wrong.

    Not only that, but usually it's someone with money who wants a company to be "the boss" and tell other people what to do; it's a sense of self-entitlement e.g. "I'm John Smith! I DESERVE to have my own business and be in charge, not work for somebody else!" that drives a lot of these idiots to own their own businesses when they really don't understand the market they plan to be in, and just kind of hope to do barely enough to stay afloat to justify their business.

  • (cs) in reply to Chris V
    Chris V:
    What is this nonsense about Microsoft not testing its software before it ships. I worked at Microsoft as a tester. And yes, we did test continuously before our software shipped.

    Everyone knows Microsoft tests their software; but it is idiomatic to suggest otherwise.

    Microsoft proponents are best advised to smile and enjoy the good times while they last.

  • (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    "To be fair though, this wasn't entirely Dave's fault - while his freewheeling design style certainally didn't help the situation, the choice of Access to drive the data behind the application."

    The choice of Access to drive the data behind the application....what?

    Was the situation.

  • Outtascope (unregistered) in reply to Chris V
    Chris V:
    What is this nonsense about Microsoft not testing its software before it ships. I worked at Microsoft as a tester. And yes, we did test continuously before our software shipped.

    Anything pass? <<ducks>>

  • (cs) in reply to GalacticCowboy
    GalacticCowboy:
    Anon:
    "To be fair though, this wasn't entirely Dave's fault - while his freewheeling design style certainally didn't help the situation, the choice of Access to drive the data behind the application."

    The choice of Access to drive the data behind the application....what?

    Was the situation.

    FIX: replace the last comma with a colon. The "while" is still dangling, though.

  • [email protected] (unregistered)

    Can this website please hire a proofreader?

    This is a long run on sentence. I had to read it twice. "Soon after, Jay was reassigned to work with the lead programmer Dave and Scott started passing out cigars to customers with the good news the new version of the application was expected a full two months ahead of schedule."

    And lets not get started on the typos, which are starting to become the Daily WTF.

  • Harold (unregistered)

    Test not what software you ship to your customer, test what your customer uses in your software.

  • Sanderman (unregistered)

    A great WTF this is.

    Seriously. TRWTF is that the developers didn't spontaneously petrify and shatter upon hearing that sentence.

  • Grnch (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    This type of thing is common practice in embedded systems. Mainly because there is not file system available and not way to add resources to executable files. No a WTF!
    That was just... beautiful (wipes tear)

    One of the finest trolls I've seen in a long time. Perfect timing, perfect execution, with just a hint of the article typos.

  • Design Pattern (unregistered)

    Scott is following approved and successful software development practises: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better

    CAPTCHA: sagaciter - A bard specialised in citing sagas.

  • Zapp Brannigan (unregistered) in reply to Buddy
    Buddy:
    As deadlines loom, I found this to be a fairly accurate progression of standards:

    "We're gonna run a tight ship, everything fully tested and documented."

    "As far as documentation, just put in the headings."

    "Make sure you test, documentation we can get someone to do later."

    "Just get it done, as long as it works, that's what matters."

    "You got a clean compile, right? Ship it!"

    After the syntax errors are fixed and you get a clean compile, what more is there to test?

  • [email protected] (unregistered)

    Found another funny one that made my co-workers laugh.

    Towards the bottom: "No matter the outcome, so long as Scott kept playing like the "big boys", his business's continued stability was assured."

    business's - or should it be business'ssss'ssssssss

  • Mike K (unregistered)

    Well ... where does one start? Once you've worked at more that one semi-large company, you will find that the idiotic business practices described in this post are ... wait for it ... STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE. It is truly a wonder to me that any piece of software works for any period of time without bombing.

    As the carpenter foreman said to his crew on a job I worked on long years ago, when a few dozen doors got hung wrong, "Well, guys, we aint got time to do it right, but we got time to do it over".

    And as a fellow contractor once said to me, "Thank god for crappy software".

  • Zapp Brannigan (unregistered) in reply to Ken
    Ken:
    In a way this can be a useful way of finding out which functions to remove - deliberately put bugs in functions you suspect no one ever uses ;)
    You should patent this method before someone steals it. Oops too late!
  • Ven (unregistered)

    TRWTF, as others have likely said, is me scratching my head while reading this thinking "I must've read that wrong."

    Nope. A second read and I still don't understand many of the, um, sentences, the worst of which seem to be key points in the story.

    Captcha: veniam - Ven, I am.

  • Quirkafleeg (unregistered) in reply to Chris V
    Chris V:
    What is this nonsense about Microsoft not testing its software before it ships. I worked at Microsoft as a tester. And yes, we did test continuously before our software shipped.
    But you've not said what you were continuously testing…
  • silent d (unregistered) in reply to Adriano
    Adriano:
    Anon:
    "To be fair though, this wasn't entirely Dave's fault - while his freewheeling design style certainally didn't help the situation, the choice of Access to drive the data behind the application."

    The choice of Access to drive the data behind the application....what?

    The choice of Access to drive the data behind the application, period. It was clear enough, wasn't it?

    Yes, yes, it's a joke. Like Access.

    I thought the author just got so depressed at that point they couldn't finish the sentence.

  • Quirkafleeg (unregistered) in reply to [email protected]
    Can this website please hire a proofreader?
    Why the website and not its owner?
    This is a long run-on sentence. I had to read it twice. […] And let's not get started on the typos, which are starting to become the Daily WTF.
    And as for the comments…
  • quisling (unregistered) in reply to metzomagic
    metzomagic:
    Typos in the story seem to be par for the course here (and I cursorily spotted 4 or 5 glaring ones in this one), but when you screw up the main punchline of the story, in BOLD AND CAPS no less, that's a bit much, don't you think?
    Hahahaha, Mark bowytzed it again! Man-oh-man, unless he's got a cross-over into internet psychology , that guy needs to switch majors:

    WORKS NOT SERIOUS OR COMEDY THE WRITING FOR HIM!

  • APP (unregistered) in reply to [email protected]
    Found another funny one that made my co-workers laugh.

    Towards the bottom: "No matter the outcome, so long as Scott kept playing like the "big boys", his business's continued stability was assured."

    business's - or should it be business'ssss'ssssssss

    What's your point? Business's is correct. Business' is incorrect, no matter how much you see things of that ilk these days. (An apostrophe has no pronunciation, and so the apostrophe-only version should be pronounced exactly like business.) With rare exceptions, to make a possessive singular nouns take -'s, even ones that end in -s.

  • ih8u (unregistered) in reply to poo
    poo:
    Dave's approach was to handle each individual case as it came up, generally with no notice to the other coders assisting him, or even any comments explaining the changes. The resulting code was a thorny thicket of redundant functions which were subsequently copy-and-pasted across the rest of the codebase, each time repeating about 75% of the code of the previous iteration.
    Make no doubt, he was absolutely a fine coder

    I have doubts.

    It's ok as long as you didn't make them.

  • (cs)

    I think I may have found the author's day job: Senate Candidate Misspells State's Name In Ad

    Second try. This is not spam.

  • Anonymously Yours (unregistered) in reply to APP
    APP:
    What's your point? Business's is correct. Business' is incorrect, no matter how much you see things of that ilk these days. (An apostrophe has no pronunciation, and so the apostrophe-only version should be pronounced exactly like business.) With rare exceptions, to make a possessive singular nouns take -'s, even ones that end in -s.
    Academia disagrees with you.

    CAPTCHA: validus (possessive: validus')

  • somedude (unregistered) in reply to Charles

    Maybe I needing for embedded development later.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to [email protected]
    Can this website please hire a proofreader?

    NO! That would ruin the whole character of the site.

  • Anonymously Yours (unregistered) in reply to somedude
    somedude:
    Maybe I needing for embedded development later.
    your needing is exactly as you are now

    CAPTCHA: bene, because those are the kinds of praises that lead to raises.

  • nobody (unregistered) in reply to Peter
    Peter:
    beentheredonethat:
    ochrist:
    beentheredonethat:
    Oh really? ... has been ... ships? Please google "stones glass houses".

    Maybe you should just adjust your sarcasm/humo(u)r detector?

    Purposely misspelling went out of style (and way out of funny) the 3rd or 4th time around with lolcatz some years ago.
    What misspelling are you talking about? I've read and re-read ochrist's original post, and I can't see a misspelling.

    "has been" and "ships" don't agree with each other. That is all.

  • Passively Agressive. (unregistered) in reply to nobody
    nobody:
    Peter:
    beentheredonethat:
    ochrist:
    beentheredonethat:
    Oh really? ... has been ... ships? Please google "stones glass houses".

    Maybe you should just adjust your sarcasm/humo(u)r detector?

    Purposely misspelling went out of style (and way out of funny) the 3rd or 4th time around with lolcatz some years ago.
    What misspelling are you talking about? I've read and re-read ochrist's original post, and I can't see a misspelling.

    "has been" and "ships" don't agree with each other. That is all.

    I don't know about that, but they both agree with comment.

    What a rube.

  • (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    This type of thing is common practice in embedded systems. Mainly because there is not file system available and not way to add resources to executable files. No a WTF!
    Charles:
    I can't see the WTF. This is exactly what you would do with embedded development, if, for example, you didn't have a file system allowing you to access the files.
    Two posts referring to (the lack of) file systems in embedded development and there being no WTF? Did I miss some classic discussion that's being referenced or something?
  • Mr.'; Drop Database -- (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Gray Falcon:
    [Insert Microsoft Windows Vista joke here.]
    Three operating systems walk into a bar; one has a nun, one has a talking dog and the other has a ten inch pianist...
    Windows XP has the talking dog. What are the other two?
  • The Wanderer (unregistered) in reply to Mr.'; Drop Database --

    I don't know about the pianist, but nuns are sometimes also referred to as penguins...

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to EvanED
    EvanED:
    frits:
    This type of thing is common practice in embedded systems. Mainly because there is not file system available and not way to add resources to executable files. No a WTF!
    Charles:
    I can't see the WTF. This is exactly what you would do with embedded development, if, for example, you didn't have a file system allowing you to access the files.
    Two posts referring to (the lack of) file systems in embedded development and there being no WTF? Did I miss some classic discussion that's being referenced or something?
    Nah, just yesterday's.
  • Duke of New York (unregistered)

    MUAHAHA THE ACCESS... database has always been celebrated for its reliability.

    There is an application from ATS, built on that same reliability!

  • Steve Parker (unregistered) in reply to Anonymously Yours
    Anonymously Yours:
    APP:
    What's your point? Business's is correct. Business' is incorrect, no matter how much you see things of that ilk these days. (An apostrophe has no pronunciation, and so the apostrophe-only version should be pronounced exactly like business.) With rare exceptions, to make a possessive singular nouns take -'s, even ones that end in -s.
    Academia disagrees with you.

    CAPTCHA: validus (possessive: validus')

    I can't answer for USAian English interpretation on Latin posessives, but in English English, Businesses is correct.

  • Quirkafleeg (unregistered) in reply to Steve Parker
    Steve Parker:
    I can't answer for USAian English interpretation on Latin posessives, but in English English, Businesses is correct.
    Yes – but that's the plural, not the singular possessive.
  • Gary S. (unregistered) in reply to beentheredonethat
    beentheredonethat:
    Do you still laugh when you see "All your bases are belong to us"?
    No, but I might laugh if I saw "All your base are belong to us".

    Properly misspelling may have never been in style when nitpicking someone elses grammar, but incorrectly referencing memes has only ever made everyone aware of what a try-hard douche you are.

  • Coder (unregistered) in reply to Tim

    This could have been the company I worked for... wait, my name is Dave!

    ...na, just a coincidence...

  • gil (unregistered)

    I'm curious, do you really think all these typos in the articles are accidental? There are so many of them, and often a similar pattern appears day after day. I'm pretty sure the author does it deliberately to amuse himself.

  • Mike (unregistered) in reply to beentheredonethat
    beentheredonethat:
    ochrist:
    TRWTF is this sentence: "WE WILL TEST NOT SOFTWARE BEFORE IT SHIPS!"

    What will we then test if not the software?

    (this comment has been tested before it ships)

    Oh really? ... has been ... ships? Please google "stones glass houses".

    Please google "grammar nazi"

  • Mike (unregistered) in reply to Quirkafleeg
    Quirkafleeg:
    Chris V:
    What is this nonsense about Microsoft not testing its software before it ships. I worked at Microsoft as a tester. And yes, we did test continuously before our software shipped.
    But you've not said what you were continuously testing…

    Hopefully they were continuously testing the pregnancy (or lack thereof) of their female employees and the significant others of the male employees, in an effort to keep the stupidity from spreading.

    Yes, I know it's a stretch, but I'm all out of truly witty things to say tonight, so you got this instead.

  • ingenious (unregistered) in reply to Mike
    Mike:
    Hopefully they were continuously testing the pregnancy (or lack thereof) of their female employees and the significant others of the male employees, in an effort to keep the stupidity from spreading.

    http://xkcd.com/583/

  • beentheredonethat (unregistered) in reply to Gary S.
    Gary S.:
    Properly misspelling may have never been in style when nitpicking someone elses grammar, but incorrectly referencing memes has only ever made everyone aware of what a try-hard douche you are.
    Oh really? Come on now, I didn't find it funny then, when it reappeared as web-retro, and not now, and I'm certainly not going to google for the exact grammar of it - that would have been try-hard nitpicking douche. Kinda what you did right there in fact. If I write "I can haz codez?" Will you also bewail how there is not enough z's to really honor the lolcatz meme's? Good day to you sir! Now lets just focus on the content rather than the grammar of the stories, shall we?
  • Andrew Magerman (unregistered) in reply to Steve Parker

    Er... Steve...

    Business' is the correct form for "of his business". Suhch as Carlos' laptop.

    Businesses is the plural of a business. Both are pronounced the same way.

  • reet lao (unregistered) in reply to Maurits
    Maurits:
    Chris V:
    What is this nonsense about Microsoft not testing its software before it ships. I worked at Microsoft as a tester. And yes, we did test continuously before our software shipped.

    Everyone knows Microsoft tests their software; but it is idiomatic to suggest otherwise.

    Sure, but they don't fix it.

  • P.M.Lawrence (unregistered) in reply to APP
    APP:
    Found another funny one that made my co-workers laugh.

    Towards the bottom: "No matter the outcome, so long as Scott kept playing like the "big boys", his business's continued stability was assured."

    business's - or should it be business'ssss'ssssssss

    What's your point? Business's is correct. Business' is incorrect, no matter how much you see things of that ilk these days. (An apostrophe has no pronunciation, and so the apostrophe-only version should be pronounced exactly like business.) With rare exceptions, to make a possessive singular nouns take -'s, even ones that end in -s.

    Actually, using an apostrophe with no following "s" would technically be correct for any genitive, as it would be representing the omission of the final "s" as well as the omission of the archaic "e" of the genitive that now only occurs in specialised compound words like "Wednesday" (apostrophes aren't just used to represent omissions in genitives but in other things too). And apostrophes do get used in just that way in some common variants of genitives of words ending in "s", e.g. "St. James's Square/St. James' Square".

  • S (unregistered) in reply to P.M.Lawrence
    P.M.Lawrence:
    APP:
    Found another funny one that made my co-workers laugh.

    Towards the bottom: "No matter the outcome, so long as Scott kept playing like the "big boys", his business's continued stability was assured."

    business's - or should it be business'ssss'ssssssss

    What's your point? Business's is correct. Business' is incorrect, no matter how much you see things of that ilk these days. (An apostrophe has no pronunciation, and so the apostrophe-only version should be pronounced exactly like business.) With rare exceptions, to make a possessive singular nouns take -'s, even ones that end in -s.

    Actually, using an apostrophe with no following "s" would technically be correct for any genitive, as it would be representing the omission of the final "s" as well as the omission of the archaic "e" of the genitive that now only occurs in specialised compound words like "Wednesday" (apostrophes aren't just used to represent omissions in genitives but in other things too). And apostrophes do get used in just that way in some common variants of genitives of words ending in "s", e.g. "St. James's Square/St. James' Square".

    Gee, guys. This is soooo intersting!!! \o/

Leave a comment on “Test No Software Before it Ships!”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article