re: What does "Writing Good Software" Mean? Good for Who?

FBuchan — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:57:05 GMT

I might append something like "separated" to your list. One of the biggest challenges with using software seesm to be the "tied to" elements. Simple example, SSMS has a few warts, and they don't seem to be addressed rapidly because they are bound up with warts somewhere else in the system. Treating UI like skins, separated from the underlyting layers discretely, would mean that you could enhance usability much more easily over time.

In a less awkward way, I guess what I'm talking about is that really great software should, to some extent, be written with a degree of separation in mind, to prevent the kind of forced compliance that hampers adoption, or slows end-user acceptance. (Best example I can think is Visual Studio tools, where I have at least 2 versions installed because the frameworks are tied to the development tools. When designing the tools, planning not to have that happen is a useability issue.)

As I reread that I think, "It's way too late/early for rational thought, but what thehey. " ;-)

What does "Writing Good Software" Mean? Good for Who?

Noticias externas — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:44:49 GMT

I’ve mentioned before on this blog a little about how we write software here at Microsoft. I think it