Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!oscsuna.osc.edu!pixelpump.osc.edu!stein
From: stein@pixelpump.osc.edu (Rick 'Transputer' Stein)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: code reviews
Message-ID: <217@oscsuna.osc.edu>
Date: 19 Jun 89 14:53:50 GMT
References: <12047@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <116@opel.UUCP> <16925@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Sender: news@oscsuna.osc.edu
Reply-To: stein@pixelpump.UUCP (Rick 'Transputer' Stein)
Organization: Ohio Supercomputer Center
Lines: 19

In article <16925@bellcore.bellcore.com> duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes:
>And while there are definitely market considerations when it comes to releasing
>a product, I'd say they have to be accounted for by factoring such reviews (and
>other quality efforts) into the schedules.  I would say that in the short-term,
>the claims of overhead and productivity "loss" could be substantiated.  But in
>terms of satisfaction with the product, long-term cost, and productivity gains
>in less maintenance, I'd have to say such reviews end up being worth it.

I must agree.  Code walkthroughs, design reviews, acceptance testing, etc.
are all part of the software engineering process.  These elements provide
accountability, and this is a necessary part of any environment where
funds are spent developing a product.  The activities are _part_ of the
process, and while considered a nuisance by some, are invaluable tools
for management.
-=-
Richard M. Stein (aka Rick 'Transputer' Stein)
Concurrent Software Specialist @ The Ohio Supercomputer Center
Ghettoblaster vacuum cleaner architect and Trollius semi-guru
Internet: stein@pixelpump.osc.edu, Ma Bell Net: 614-292-4122