Posts by Hobbes6 posts • joined Monday 8th January 2007 12:37 GMT
The way they're playing at the moment I'm sure the English Rugby team, even with GeckoGloves (tm me) would still find a way to fumble the ball...
Please note, as a fan of England I class this as affectionate mockery, rather than sledging from any of our colonial chums...
Load Linux,
Up the wattage
Instant-Blinding-Ray for all the kids.
Happy Slapping? Thats for wimps. Real Nerds go for happy-lasting-retinal-damage.
when your little app accidentally comes up with someone's REAL number, you'll be reimbursing them will you?
Sheesh...
No.
Okay, I must be bored, but just to make this nice and clear for everyone (cause all seem a little confused).
Typhoon is the renamed Eurofighter (It was decided that for export markets the name Eurofighter wasn't brilliant. Not sure why they thought it was a good name for internal markets either...)
It is essentially an air-superiority fighter, as befits when it was first specced, and is very good at it, but since A/S isn't such a big thing now, what with the main targets du jour being distinctly ground based, they have 'bolted on' some Ground Attack capability, to make it a bit more relevant.
The JSF is a catch all replacement aircraft for, on our side of the pond, the Harrier, and on the Yank side, the F-18 as a carrier borne aircraft, the AV-8B (harrier variant) for the marines and also whatever it is the Airforce use for G/A.
None of them have anything to do with the F22 Raptor, which is a very expensive air-sup fighter of American origin and unlikely to sell anywhere else given that the a) the Americans don't want to sell it to anyone else and b) each one costs about as much as the entire air-force of most over nations.
Hope thats made everything clear for everyone.
Really, neither should drive development.
The REQUIREMENTS should drive development.
If the resulting system becomes hard to develop because of what its required to do, well, tough.
If the resulting system becomes hard to test because of what its required to do, well, double tough.
In order that you understand that I do support thorough testing I should point out that 'able to function without a significant number of defects' (interpret 'significant number' according to taste, user/engineer/microsoft engineer/manager/microsoft manager) is always a requirement even if so many people always pretend it isn't...
Also, if either of the above cases is true, maybe you've done your requirements badly, and of course getting a correct set of requirements is pretty much the holy grail of development (i.e. highly desirable, but unlikely to turn up any time soon...) but my point stands... its not about making it work for the guys in the middle, its about getting it right for the guys at the end.
