|
Sponsored Links: |
The I-Feel-Lucky Approach to Software Development:
The game teaches school students to resist the "I feel lucky" and methods of use momentum in lieu. It will show how to decide if your hand of cards is more likely to win than another person and how to calculate the probabilities of definite combinations of numbers to appear on a pair of dice. The methods taught in the school play are based on simple techniques for counting and probability. They are very similar to the methods taught in this book.If you have any doubts about the results of the use of methods in comparison with the I-feel blessed approach, think about that most casinos today are populated exclusively by computer games, no cards or dice. This method is in place, because no account of the techniques that can be used successfully to calculate or predict the odds of winning at computer games. Only a hacker or someone well informed insiders have the opportunity to earn over they spend with electronic games. Clearly, financial thinkers in the casinos saw the power of nice practice and moved to evade them.Think about the methods and measurements should provide demonstrable value to have credibility and value.If the administration lacks a method that has proven value, which will be the best they can in place. If the product is prosperous, management will believe in their winning streak and continue to play their hunches. In general, nobody is keen to prove a formal method of this sort, until it is exhausted and it breaks the streak. If you need to try that finally, five method works better than chance, you must measure how well each performs effectively.As I said in Chapter 1, people now feel blessed few, and they (testers), they five time again have an opportunity to prove our worth. But what should be similar? How to make a check of a case of methods with a director who does not believe that he or he needs to check? The best way I know is that the director of providing high quality information that he or he can use to make decisions that have a positive effect on the bottom line.
To do this you will need to create an approach to evidence that supplements (and may succeed with) the development methodology being used. You will must measure and monitor the extent of what you, and, finally, will must convert your measurement information as the information that management is truly valuable. And that is what this book.Another way you can demonstrate the value of the methods and parameters to measure the cost benefit of not using the methods and metrics and to compare the cost-benefit of its use.For example, in a case study of five of the early 1990s in plastic wrappings RAD project reported that in 1994 a group of testers training, using the methods and indicators in this book, found errors in the rate five to five per hour, while non-trained testers, who were not using formal methods and metrics, they found five errors per day in the same applications. In addition, over 90 percent of the bugs reported by trained examiners is fixed, while half of the bugs reported by trained evaluators were returned by developers as unreproducible.The best reason for using methods and measurements is that firms that use them have a competitive advantage. They get to do a better job for less.In this study, trained evaluators were paid a salary that was very five times that of trained tasters. Even at double the cost of paying an average of $ 13 for examiners trained to detect a mistake, while an average cost of $ 50 for trained evaluators to find the same error. Although the cost of education check is taken in to account, the evaluators using methods and measurements are much more efficient. These are the facts that motivate the management to think about and address the measurement methods used by trained assessors.I firmly believe that a competent official tester (those using methods and parameters) can successfully check any development project, regardless of development methodology being employed as long as they have sufficient resources and management support to do so. Create or change the approach of proof to meet the needs of the project is a critical piece of the acquisition of such resources and support.Before examining the current methods of analysis in the field and the criteria to be taken, let's examine some of the myths about testing and check approaches. What are some of the widespread, often erroneous assumptions about the approaches to be taken for testing?
Some Myths about Art, Science, and Software:
As noted above, property wealth is an important component of the perceived quality of a application product. A rich set of features requires a creative and innovative approach to design. This requirement has led to an infusion of artistic talent in the application development method. Typically, this lacks artistic talent basic training in science or engineering. Even worse, the Net opens the door for absolutely someone to a web-site and pretend to be a professional anything.One of the most destructive myths in the industry is that somehow science and art are mutually exclusive, that scientists and engineers can not think creatively and that artists can not or should not be educated to be competent in measuring or science because it would hurt their creativity.
Myths about Art:
ART: means to join or fit. It is commonly defined as follows:
The human capacity for doing things, the creativity of human beings unlike the world of nature.Ability; crafts.Any specific skill or its application, for example, the art of making friends.Any art, craft or profession or your principles.The creative work or its principles, such as doing things in a way that shows how the beauty & unusual perception: the art, including painting, sculpture, architecture, music, literature, theater, dance, etc.The quality of being smart or smart.The quality of being shrewd or cunning; complicated, smart.The infusion of artistic talent in program development has undoubtedly improved performance. It's also caused the degradation of quality bass in the method of program development. Four of the most popular myths in the program development community is that artists are creative & that only artists can not be creative if they are forced to follow the rules.I spent 25 years in the performing arts, & I am an artist & an engineer. No four the most difficult exercises in the grounds of an artist. Musicians, dancers, painters, singers, writers & all practices for hours every day for plenty of years to build something called art. The depth & quality of method as an artist is the domain of that person, their discipline. An artist can not be competitive without a great method. Because my own experience with art & science, I am wary of the person claiming to be an artist, but following a complaint disciplined approach. This person is not likely to be a competent artist.
Myths about Science:
Scientific methods grow out of a body of knowledge of the facts, not myth & supposition. Science refers to a body of knowledge is a body of models & generalizations that organizes & relates the observed facts. The purpose of the collection of these facts is to make predictions. These predictions are then tested by comparing the actual observations or experiments.A generally accepted scientific conceptual process is called a theory. One theory has seldom been demonstrated. One theory is thought about a valid model of reality if it correlates well with a considerable body of facts & if no one contests to find a fact that contradicts their predictions. There is always the possibility that the best established theory is refuted by someone who can show their predictions to be in error. At this point, the theory must be revised, corrected, refined, or abandoned.When a scientist publishes a new idea, called an invention or innovation. Inventing the means to find, meet, or discover. This definition includes (1) to devise, designed or manufactured in the mind & making excuses, & (2) or thinking of producing, as a new tool, process, etc., or origin, & by experience, or create For the first time. According to Webster's New World Dictionary, innovate means to renew, or alter, introduce new methods or devices to bring such an innovation. These definitions certainly sound like creativity.Science begins by systematically recording the facts. These facts must be accurate & well defined, & quantitative. The scientist is to manage & correlate these facts. The product of this process is usually a working hypothesis that is capable of prediction. A working hypothesis is provisional. This is a research guide & is subject to constant alter & refinement. One hypothesis is incorporated in to the scientific theory only when it's been empirically verified in lots of respects. Any hypothesis is abandoned or revised if their predictions are contradicted by observation.
Myths about Software:
The popular myth is that the artist throws a lot of things together & comes with a miracle of creation. This does not mean that the scientist can not be creative, witty, or inventive, or that the artist is undisciplined & can not keep lovely records. But that is the myth. If you are inventing something new, using a system called experimentation. In commercial program, they call the system of developing a new product. How does the experiment or the development system works is what separates scientists & artists.While the artist is probably at the peak right & start following her or his creative intuition, the scientist begins with conducting background investigations & the formulation of an approach to carryover out the experiment. The scientist takes a careful record of the steps in the system, assumptions, ingredients used & their quantities & the result.Things of pure art is lovely for distinctive & limited editions. Creation is about taking risks to try new & different things. Success is capricious. The homogeneity & reproducibility are the hallmark of art. Most of the career of an artist is going to try to find the spotlight amazing painting, hit song, best seller, or whatever. In the commercial world they require miracles reproducible. The next version of the program must be even better than the current version, art offers no guarantee.For example, think about the cookies. Great program & giant cookies have much in common. They evolve through a system. A business needs not only to create a "cookie" lovely, but also must be able to make lots of of these cookies, as the market demands. Also, all those who buy a cookie or wants a cracker, so cookies must be consistently lovely, group after group. The manufacturer must be able to do a lot of time cookies after so long without any disagreeable surprises. Generally, it is inappropriate for a company to generate a batch of cookies amazing if you can not play forever on sale in the future.The artist can invent a "cookie" amazing, but there is no guarantee that can be played with the same quality. The cookie was invented by the scientist may not be as great, but is likely to be reproducible with consistent quality.Furthermore, artists tend to ignore the needs that they disagree with his artistic sensibility. Therefore, it is not uncommon that the cookie amazing that the artist created to be a poor fit of the cookie market purchase. While it is true that a scientist's creativity can be inhibited by their knowledge of the facts, the creation of the artist can be paralyzed by ignorance of the facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment