I work. Don't let tests dictate your workflow, start them and move onto something else. The results will wait until you have time to focus on them again.
Because its the current trendy thing. And chasing that dragon isn't necessarily a bad thing if it gets people in the door. Sure its an evolutionary dumb step in some ways but lowering the barrier to entry means that ideas that might not otherwise come to the space could get a chance to grow. Or if nothing else the trendy attention means more libraries get written, which helps someone else down the road.
There are a lot of blind optimism in that statement, but we all know that the best tech doesn't win. What wins is the good enough-ist tech that also pops enough buzzwords win the to interest of the dude that claims to only care about the best tech.
That said, I still get questioned about my decision like I have 2 heads.
Well, of course. You're bucking a social norm that is generally enjoyable in and of itself, has a handful of well known reasons for abstaining, and also carries a low amount of baggage that would prevent open discussion of your reasoning. What do you expect?
Not exactly new, the FDA is just getting around* to releasing draft guidance [0] and is/has been ramping up their consideration of device security in the PMA/401k approval processes already. What really lit the fire under medical companies asses was the 2011 Blackhat presentation [1] of the hacked insulin pump. Depressingly and unsurprisingly the risk to reputation has been the biggest driver of security so far. The blowback also lead to congress commissioning a GAO report released almost a year ago [2] that concluded that the FDA really should do something and is actually more meaningful on evaluating software than the recent draft guidance. There was already some FDA guidance on security of devices containing COTS from 2005 [3], but wasn't just about COTS, and even the author of that guidance would tell you the biggest mistake in it was mentioning COTS in the title.
* This guidance is overdue and vague as usual. The FDA is generally well intentioned but politics will slow them down even after it's a forgone conclusion that they're going to do something.
You're upset about the culture? Do something about it. Speak out.
Kuchera has got a point here, this tester needs to speak out. I hear Totilo has a popular video game blog these days. Maybe Totilo could give this tester a platform to tell his story.
I dunno. I'm getting kind of tired of the frequency Kuchera's opinion pieces are condescending "hard truth"-telling. Regardless of if I agree or disagree with his broader points, reading his posts feels like a slog. I guess that's his shtick, but I can't stomach it.
edit: I removed a criticism of a particular bit of his post, it struck me as really silly but was a tangent.
I might take your post at face value, but I know the Cards guys are currently working on releasing a CBS-property branded expansion pack. If CBS' guys can can do it, I have to question your pitch. It sounds like you're on the other end of trope where the "idea guy" goes to programmer with lame idea; maybe the idea was even good but something else in the message that proved it would never work.
It's a real shame too. It will go out of style in a year or two and, gasp, maybe these people will have to get real jobs or start a real company! Assholes.
With a grudge like that, who's the one full of themselves now? They didn't follow the standard business song and dance. So what? Who cares? I'd might even say "good on them" if I knew the full situation.
start a real company
Yeah! Their product isn't ruthless data harvesting. What are they, babies?
I think a lot of people that care about C support are already aware of Herb Sutter's stance on the matter. But knowing why he made his decision doesn't really change anything, its not like C++ never crossed their minds before. And classing it up by calling it official policy doesn't make the pill go down any easier.
Microsoft's position in the market is already big enough that they'll never really be proven wrong on C unless they relent. But they're also not large enough to kill it outright.
