• Labasta (unregistered)

    Programs are strange

    When you're a code

    Syntax looks ugly

    You're all alone

  • LZ79LRU (unregistered)

    Apparently someone gave the wrong man, or in this case script language, a ride.

  • fanguad (unregistered)

    I had forgotten all about DOORS until now. I remember the horrors of generating Word documents. And having to tweak the export scripts after your job failed 2 hours in. And the fact that you couldn't safely use your computer for anything else while it was running because it used the copy/paste buffer.

  • Tim R (unregistered)

    TRWTF is incorrect hyphenation in the phrase "it's infinite wisdom"

    DOORS was around well before the days of Word documents being XML based, so using COM was better than the only other possible option - reverse engineering the .DOC format

  • Teocali (unregistered) in reply to fanguad

    I liked the requirements management part of Doors. The rest of this software can go take a shitting fuck, for what I care.

  • (nodebb)

    From my experience, the minute you need some database for requirements you fail the N in INVEST.

  • Jaloopa (unregistered)

    I get the feeling I'm missing a lot of puns in this article due to not knowing the Doors and their back catalogue

  • (nodebb)

    When DOORS was owned by Telelogic twenty years ago, it had a proper document generator that worked with Word templates. It was flexible and worked pretty well. When IBM bought the product, they quickly killed it.

    I still use DOORS every day at work. When the screens go white and your cursor is just spinning there, that's how you know it is working!

  • shmuel (unregistered)

    Extension framework developers: yes, we know that there are already 100 programming languages. we totally want to invent the 101.

    also the same developers: why won't people use our language? and why everyone ask for proper documentation?

    Hey Coverity, I'm looking at you.

  • LZ79LRU (unregistered) in reply to shmuel

    To be fair, building your own language and compiler and everything is fun.

    Like, if I had infinite money and time and could do just one dream project in my life it would be to build a universal pessimising compiler. That is a compiler that accepts all known languages and outputs the absolute worst possible, deliberately pessimised code for any input without introducing bugs. We are talking slowest execution, largest memory footprint, the works. And I would have a team of top notch CS experts working for me just to make sure no corner is left unturned in the quest for more pessimistic performance.

    And once that is completed, I would die a happy man.

  • Argle (unregistered) in reply to LZ79LRU

    You know, I suppose nearly anyone could say to you "Why? they already created ____?" and fill in your most hated language. And, shmuel, when I created the "99 Bottles of Beer" site back in the 90s, I thought I was going to go into shock if the number of languages ever got to 99. The current maintainers now list over 1500 languages.

  • Yazeran (unregistered) in reply to LZ79LRU

    Yes indeed

    Its like building your own CPU out of discrete logic gates.

    You do not expect it to be used for anything serious, but seeing it run the Eostrathenes algorithm to find primes makes you happy and proud.

    Even it finding those 40 odd primes (the ones below 256) has taken you a year and thausans of dollars and could have been done by pen and paper in a few minutes.

    Yazeran

  • TrayKnots (unregistered) in reply to LZ79LRU

    I feel like this task is unbounded...

    You have this code in your language c = a + b

    It translates it to mov reg1 0 add reg1 a add reg1 b

    Now you can have a slower computation by adding a nop in front of it... Can you make it slower? Yes, by adding a nop in front of it... can you make it slower, yes by adding a nop in front of it... can you make it slower? ...

    Hence there is no slowest.... For every arbitrary rate of slowness, there is an amount of nops that are slower.

  • (nodebb) in reply to LZ79LRU

    I'd prefer to write a compiler that produced technically (according to the spec) correct that completely broke any unjustifiable assumptions the user had made about how the compiler would behave. Things like size and alignment of words, and anything in the C++ sec that says 'undefined' or 'implementation defined'.

  • Change is.. (unregistered)
    No, it would make your average developer an unhappy girl.

    Given the average developer is male, that is quite a shocking effect!

  • John R. Strohm (unregistered)

    I had to do some custom reporting, mainly cross-referencing and traceability stuff, from DOORS a while back.

    I looked at DXL. I (figuratively) barfed.

    I wound up exporting the whole thing to a set of delimited files, massiging those with some C code, then hacking a bunch of Common LISP to do the heavy lifting.

  • Harris (unregistered) in reply to thosrtanner

    Even better, break them inconsistently.

    Just have a bank of random implentations that are swapped in and out at runtime just to make sure no one uses any undefined behaviour.

  • Conradus (unregistered) in reply to Harris

    Best of all would be compiler that simply errors out when you try to use undefined behavior. Or if the UB is only detectable at run-time, crashes the program (with a relevant error message) when it happens. The latter, alas, might involve performance penalties; a lot of UB exists because it's been considered too costly to do something actually sane.

  • Oliver Jones (unregistered)

    Can it be? The old Rational Software requirements product from the turn of the millenium? The thing that ingested Word docs looking for "shall" and giving BOM-style numbers.

    I wonder if this relates to the difficulty of creating scalable systems funded by US government contracts?

    Check out Jennifer Pahlka's book Recoding America. New York: Holt 2023 https://www.worldcat.org/title/1338301096

  • Oliver Jones (unregistered)

    Can it be? The old Rational Software requirements product from the turn of the millenium? The thing that ingested Word docs looking for "shall" and giving BOM-style numbers.

    I wonder if this relates to the difficulty of creating scalable systems funded by US government contracts?

    Check out Jennifer Pahlka's book Recoding America. New York: Holt 2023 https://www.worldcat.org/title/1338301096

  • (nodebb) in reply to Jaloopa

    All you need to know is that, like a great many other highly successful, straightforward, and easy-to-use IT things, DOORS was created by a European academic.

    If you're not already running by now, why not?

  • Alan Scrivener (unregistered)

    It sounds like DOORS was written without a well-vetted requirements document. If only there had been some tool they could have used to generate it…

  • löchlein deluxe (unregistered)

    Oooooh, AWK's string concatenation by juxtaposition lives! (String concatenation by juxtaposition, for string literals, is also a thing in Python and I think C…)

  • LZ79LRU (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • (nodebb) in reply to Conradus

    Or if the UB is only detectable at run-time, crashes the program (with a relevant error message) when it happens. The latter, alas, might involve performance penalties

    One simple case of runtime-only UB in C/C++ is signed integer overflow problems. On x86-32, the compiler could, if it wanted to be obnoxious, insert an INTO instruction (interrupt on signed overflow) after every signed ADD or SUB instruction to cause real fun, although sadly (?) this doesn't work on x64.

    a lot of UB exists because it's been considered too costly to do something actually sane

    The way I heard it, yes. If the language constrains code structure X to have defined behaviour, the compiler has to have strict rules about exact execution order and suchlike, and cannot take advantage of shortcuts it could otherwise take. The concept of UB allows the compiler to take those shortcuts, thereby producing better-performing code.

  • Duke of New York (unregistered)

    The time to copy/paste is through.

    The clipboard has to be acquired.

    We have to run the script we use

    To document what we require.

  • meclison para que sirve (unregistered)

    antivert oral http://meclizinex.com/# antivert order

  • guwahati escort (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • guwahati escort (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • (nodebb) in reply to Tim R

    DOORS was around well before the days of Word documents being XML based, so using COM was better than the only other possible option - reverse engineering the .DOC format

    Why is .RTF never considered as an option? It would have been much easier to produce.

Leave a comment on “DXL”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article