In the short term, incremental and iterative can go well, but in the long term it only makes the bit rot worse. I have had bad experiences both ways, so neither course guarantees success.
Thread synchronization is a particularly dangerous area for not having a known design, because it can lead to infrequent, timing-dependent bugs. In this case we can do both. I have seen messages from students wanting to help. Rather than just asking them what they want to work on, find out what skills they have and then point them at some of the things where you think an incremental, local approach will work. Some of them will be faster at coding C++ than I would be, because I last did significant C++ programming before most current undergraduates were born. Meanwhile, I can aim for bigger scope understanding, and may be able to find ways to simplify some of the code. Even if I don't find simplifications, once I understand more I'll be able to do a lot more to debug and fix on a wider scope. Patricia On 3/4/2016 11:11 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: ...
In my youth, I took the reverse approach a few times. It did not go well. I am very incremental and iterative in approaches now, even with what can grow into large efforts. Working with a monster existing code base which may have some significant bit rot is another story. Heroism won't carry the day. I am striving to not be too discouraged about that.
... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
