В общем так, рекомендация нормальная, что бы отговорить прибивать или только статику или только динамику.
Если ты строишь сразу и то и другое - почему нет. Особенно если вынести исходники в отдельную Object Library (https://cmake.org/Wiki/CMake/Tutorials/Object_Library) и к целевому таргету линковать именно его - исходники будут собираться ровно один раз на два таргета. Главное не перестараться :) (в моём примере выше этого нет).
So here I was idly looking at Twitter, when Scott Nickell innocently poked me, regarding one more instance of the old "cost of defects" chestnut:
"I can't tell if this "Systems Sciences Institute at IBM" thing is a new study, or just the same-old." https://dzone.com/articles/the-cost-of-poor-software-quality-infographic
I was feeling lazy, so I encouraged Scott to apply the usual Leprechaun hunting process: "Here's how you could tell: Google exact phrase for a portion of the article citing it, then note the publication dates of hits." (Try it yourself: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cost+to+fix+an+error+found+after+product+release%22&oq=%22cost+to+fix+an+error+found+after+product+release%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.7165j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Scott replied after a few minutes: "Well, at a quick glance, I traced it as far as a blog post from about 2008. That's enough to make me confident it's nothing new."
But somehow I felt we shouldn't stop there. I laid off Twitter for a moment and had a quick look at Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Systems+Sciences+Institute%22+cost+fixing+defects&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
Notice anything? Strangely enough, the "Systems Science Insitute" is only ever cited for one "result": the aforementioned bogus numbers about cost of defects.
My curiosity piqued, I tried looking for any contemporary evidence of the existence of this "Systems Science Insitute" at IBM, and could find none. The IBM web site's search box returns zero hits for that name, for instance.
I was eventually able to track down, in a 2009 obituary for the IBM Systems Journal, some evidence for the existence of something called "Systems Research Institute" at IBM: http://smartphonestechnologyandbusinessapps.blogspot.fr/2009/06/rip-ibm-systems-journal-1962-2009.html
Meanwhile, Scott helpfully prodded me into looking at result #5 on the Google Scholar list, which mentions those results as being "summarized in Pressman 1992". I know that book - I've run into it a lot, so I own an ebook copy now: "Software Engineering, a Practitioner's Approach".
Looking it up, Pressman cites IBM as follows: "_Implementing Software Inspections._ course notes, IBM Systems Sciences Institute, IBM Corporation, 1981"
Wait a minute: course notes?
What's worse, here's how Pressman introduces the data on cost of defects (emphasis mine): "To illustrate the cost impact of early error detection, we consider a series of relative costs that are based on actual cost data collected for large software projects [IBM81]."
Pressman adds in a footnote: "Although these data are more than 20 years old, they remain applicable in a modern context." Apparently many people in 2016 still believe with Pressman that 35 year old data are still relevant to a context that has seen such upheavals as the personal computer and the Internet.
But the thing that sticks with me is "course notes". This is essentially an admission that this so-called data was recalled from memory (and quite possibly poorly recalled, as the Systems Research/Sciences approximation suggests).
So here we have the telephone game again - some IBM instructor gave a course in 1981, Pressman wrote up numbers "based on" the numbers from that course a few years later, everyone else quoted Pressman as gospel and most of them deleted the somewhat inconvenient "course notes". It became "a report from IBM", and appears as such for instance in the book "Agile Testing" by my colleagues Lisa Crispin and Janet Gregory.
Citing "reports" from non-existent "institutes" isn't even the worst offense to common sense committed on a routine basis in my profession - it's just the latest example to make me want to crawl into a hole.
Not for the first time, I get this feeling that everyone in this profession is making it up as they go along, and the entire edifice of "software engineering" (as a supposed academic discipline) is the Emperor's brand new clothes.
Maybe we all need to become little kids again before it can get any better?
- Far Eastern State Technical UniversityComputer Science, 1993 - 1999
- AMT GroupSoftware guy/Product Owner, 2012 - present
- Rhonda SoftwareSoftware Engineer, 2012
How Microsoft dragged its development practices into the 21st century
In the Web era of development, Waterfalls are finally out. Agile is in.
MinGW-w64 - for 32 and 64 bit Windows | Free Development software downlo...
The mingw-w64 project is a complete runtime environment for gcc to support binaries native to Windows 64-bit and 32-bit operating systems.
The Non-Existent Software Crisis: Debunking the Chaos Report
An alarmist report that's become a universal reference in discussion of development practices obscures a much less dire reality.
Mobile app use surged 115 percent last year -- report
Messaging apps were the hottest, jumping by more than 200 percent in usage, according to analytics firm Flurry. Read this article by Lance W
Камеры на дорогах Подмосковья убил вирус - Новости и события Московской ...
Утром в понедельник в Московской области неожиданно вышли из строя почти все дорогостоящие камеры фото- и видеофиксации нарушений ПДД. Как о
Linux Today - Multi-Protocol SoftEther VPN Becomes Open Source
Help Net Security: The service relies on volunteers with a broadband connection to download the server software and set up Public VPN Relay
Google Brings Portable Native Client To Chrome -- InformationWeek
Developers can now compile native C and C++ code to run in Chrome across different hardware architectures.