[lug] Software Projects as well....

[Dhruva B. Reddy]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 01:36:42PM -0600, quoth Alan Robertson:
> "Scott A. Herod" wrote:
> > 
> [snip]
> 
> > Recently, I
> > looked into a couple of big (pseudo-)open-source projects, Mozilla and
> > OpenOffice, as well as learning to use VC++ with MS's COM specification.
> > 
> > The code and design of these projects make me cringe in horror.
> > ( So does perl but that's a separate issue. )  Are these things the
> > future of software development or an aberration?
> 
> They were designed and written as *commercial* products.  Both were
> "open-sourced" as an afterthought.  It's not really fair to call them open
> source projects.  I have a similar reaction to reading the code in FailSafe
> -- for the same reason.
> [snip]

Actually, it is my understanding that the Mozilla developers took one look at
the Netscape Communicator code, gasped in horror (or doubled over with
laughter, I'm not sure which), and proceeded to rewrite from scratch.  If this
is not true, why has it taken so long for the product to come to fruition?

I am a relative newcomer to software development (4 years experience), and I 
was taught that forging ahead without a good design is a recipe for disaster.  
Indeed, in the commercial (OK, consulting) world I have seen both sides of the 
coin, and appreciate the importance of a well documented design that has the 
buy-in of everyone on he team.  While even this tends to break down over time, 
the product is *so* much easier to maintain, and the code is a source of pride.

I don't see this attitude so much in open-source projects.  In fact, I have
seen one project (whose name eludes me) that makes available any kind of design 
document (class diagrams, etc.).  On a similar note, I have not seen any open 
source CASE tools that I am comfortable recommending over, say, Rational Rose 
or Together, and I have attributed that to this attitude.

Dhruva