Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th May 2008 15:15 UTC, submitted by Shlomi Fish
Thread beginning with comment 313329
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-04
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.