Talk:N-version programming

Arbitrary title

N-version programming simply doesn't work. Programmers generally tend to make the same mistakes and assumptions, generally interpreting design requirements and specifications in the same ways. The concept of N-version programming was faulty to begin with. FredricRice 17:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)flr

N-Version Programming is only as good as the initial spec. If the initial spec is flawed in one or more ways, both designs will likely reflect these flaws. If the designers aren't aware they are developing to a flawed spec, then there will likely be a political struggle for a time until the design flaws in the initial spec are uncovered. In this way, it is actually more detrimental that the groups don't communicate more with each other and with the initial design person(s). What N-Version programming will correct for, though, is for the scenario where one team has a very junior programmer who codes lots of logical errors into one or more algorithms. The inferior program will likely be apparent on comparison of the two final products, provided the comparison isn't being run by the person who caused the errors... again, a hard thing to know in advance. If you knew who wouldn't be good enough to code a system up front, then why would you involve them in the first place? All these are issues that are easy to discuss, but very hard to definitively solve.Fine Arts 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that one of the critical parts of N-version programming was missed: the groups must be extremely diverse. (See [1]). That post explains it far better than I could.

Thequux 18:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinionated hogwash. Take the politics somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.67.172 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on N-version programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828060019/http://www.rkbexplorer.com/explorer/ to http://www.rkbexplorer.com/explorer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)