Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:The prefect blueprint? (Score 2, Insightful) 184

Joel makes some good points but also some very bad ones. I'll give him that a big project takes long to rewrite and gives the competition a chance to leap ahead. You'll have to find a way to deal with that. I'll also give him that many programmers tend to suffer from the NIH syndrome (what he calls "code is harder to read than to write" which is only true if the code really is a big mess that does needs a rewrite or if the developer trying to read it is really inexperienced). I'll also give him old code has been tested and the standing bugs are known (no, they are not fixed because that cannot be done in the old codebase unless you're willing to throw a lot of time/money at it). But that is in no way reason to dismiss a rewrite.

He claims the "hairs are bugfixes". In my experience, they're not. A lot of bugfixes tend to only remove code and leave a cleaner total behind. The "hairs" are features for users that were necessary to implement in order to remain competitive but weren't in the design when programming began. Those features are usually loved the most by users and tend to grow with additions, leaving a big mess. This can only be solved by changing the design fundamentally to enable the features in the core which usually require a rewrite of most components.

He claims code doesn't rust. Well, it does. The features i mentioned above are one way in which code rusts. Another is the platform the code runs on evolves. OS API calls used by the project may become deprecated if a new version of the OS is released. I'll admit that it takes a while before the changes are really pushed through so the rewrite becomes necessary.

Then (i promise i'll stop after this one) he claims "there is absolutely no reason to believe you are going to do a better job than you did the first time". He says there is not "more experience" because the team of programmers changed. Well, maybe the team did change, but all the bug reports from the last version are neatly integrated in the Test Plan. We're talking about a big commercial software project, right?

I'm not saying you should "just" do a rewrite from scratch, the pros and cons should be well considered. But totally dismissing it like Joel does, saying the programmers are wrong and the code is fine, is not considering it very well in my opinion.

Submission + - Is it time to kill the RIAA? Artists think so. (

thefickler writes: "On the surface, record labels exist to distribute the music of our favorite artists, but if you look much deeper, their main purpose is to make money, lots of money. There was a time when the label was needed, but today, artists can record and distribute their content much more easily thanks to the Internet on the home computer. Now artists are beginning to agree, in order for the artist and music to prosper, we must kill the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)."

Submission + - Starting an OPEN commercial project? (

mha writes: "There are two types of projects on the web:

1) Those that are or want to be commercial successes for a closed group of people (founders and investors). Examples are Google, and Slashdot.
2) Then there are many thousands tiny webprojects by one or a few individuals.

We have seen it IS possible to build something really useful and commercially successful as a big open group of users, for example Linux, Apache, Debian.

What disturbs me is that COMMERCIAL success of such projects is left to corporations. Should it not be possible to build such projects to INCLUDE the money-making, and not just the product-making?

All projects I see are either type 1) or 2). Now, if instead of contributing for nothing one could have free (as in open source, not necessarily as in free beer) projects intended to also make money, wouldn't that at least be worth an attempt?

I started a project ( for multimedia content. However, doing it alone wasn't the intention and doesn't get me anywhere. I would also be just as glad to help with some other project. The problem is, I would like to see the "web 2.0" and "Open source" ideas extended, and not limited to "you work for free", which right now no one seems to do?

So what do you think? How could WE go about starting such a project? Or would anyone be willing to share mine, or have me join theirs?"

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford