> Both are often necessary -- the PLM tells you what the author MEANT to happen.
Your assumption is that author of the code and
the author of the PLM are one and the same.
My assumption is otherwise.
> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:06:34 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: OCO, documentation, support from IBM-Main, etc. (was Re: Health
> Checker questions)
> To: [email protected]
>
> Both are often necessary -- the PLM tells you what the author MEANT to happen.
>
> ObAnecdote: I supported a set of products that I knew nothing about,
> had no PLM, no original author to consult. I wound up calling my
> favorite customer about once a month to ask what he thought it SHOULD
> be doing in a particular case...
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:55 AM, J R <[email protected]> wrote:
> > With source code available, the PLMs were a distraction.
> > If you looked at the code, you *knew* what was happening.
> > If you looked at the PLM, you saw what the author *thought*
> > was happening.
> >
> > Of course, when the code was no longer accessible, the PLM
> > was the next best thing.
> >
> > That's how *this* dino evolved.
_________________________________________________________________
Suspicious message? There’s an alert for that.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad2_122008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
