To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I applaud any attempts at defining good software, rather than relying on peoples gut feelings about software. I also think that standards such as ISO 9126 are too limited, as they only deal with quality attributes directly related to the software (functional or non-functional requirements). There is clearly a need to extend such quality models. But I am still having some issues regarding your model (or list).
For most, it seems mostly like a generalized framework containing evaluation criterias. The evaluator picks whatever requirements that are important from the list and then evaluates the software against these requirements (based on appropriate metrics). A bit like ISO 9126.
At other times it makes some fairly specific (and a tad biased) assumptions the requirements of the end-user (and implicitly - what exactly is good software). As for something like "Good Software Management" - I think it's a mistake to evaluate software on the development methodology. "Program X is not developed with method Y - dump it".
I think the model is too much a mix between general quality attributes and personal opinions.




Member since:
2005-10-10
Hi all!
Thanks for all the comments. Just a note: while it is true that the focus in the article is on open-source software (FOSS) or similar and so is my viewpoint (being a FOSS user and developer), many of the points I mention make sense for a lot of other types of software. (including web-sites or services).
As for the parameters themselves, they should not be considered as absolute requirements for quality, but rather as a generalised weighting function. By all means, some very good software and even very popular software fails to meet some of my criteria.
There is also some useful (for a change) commentary on the Joel on Software forum:
http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.627380.26
Now, I'd like to reply to the rest of the comments here.
Best Regards,
-- Shlomi Fish