Bugs? What bugs?

The following story happened to me some years ago in a company I will not disclose to protect the innocent.

I was part of a group of users and we had been given a budget to spend on computer-related issues like getting new laptops, RAM or extra software. The group would meet every 3 months to discuss how to spend the budget. During one of these meetings, the guy in charge asked around:
“So all accounted for, we have about a thousand left. Any other ideas for potential purchases?”
A girl raised her hand and said:

“Yes. I happen to be programming a lot in Fortran and I am having a hell of a time debugging because there we have no decent Fortran debugger available here. There is one available though, and it would cost about a thousand. Would that be something you would be willing to purchase?”

To which the guy promptly answered:
“Debugger? To remove bugs?”
“Well… yes.”
“No way. The easiest way is to do just like I do. Do not put bugs in your programs, that’s all.”

A long silence followed, glances were exchanged across the room and nobody knew if he was kidding us.

Apparently not, because he decided to close the session and waved off the Fortran debugger request with a sigh.

We later laughed our asses off about that one. Maybe we should have sent the guy around the world to teach how to make software that never has bugs, planes and cars that do not crash, food that is always tasty, you name it.

The story has more depth than this, though. One of the main principles in engineering is to steer away from all possible problems and defects when you design a system. So yes, putting less bugs in your software is definitely a trick of the trade. The only point he missed was that bug-free software simply does not exist, neither do crash-free planes or eternally tasty food. Go get a debugger.

Sorry, kids

Mario

My kids want a game console.

This is summer 2008: the main choices for game consoles are the popular Nintendo Wii, the expensive Sony PS/3, or Microsoft’s Xbox-360.

It seems pretty obvious Sony and Microsoft have both been drowned into a technology race towards the most powerful game console ever. I have no idea what the guys are doing in their R&D department but I am ready to bet that their management guidelines were around: “build the most powerful box for the allocated price window”. The idea was probably that people are ready to buy one new console every 10 years, so whatever hardware you put in should still be playable a decade later. Putting in the best hardware today makes a lot of sense in the long run.

Instead of focusing on hardware and performance, Nintendo put all their efforts into building the best games ever. In “Game Console”, Sony and Microsoft saw “Console” where Nintendo saw “Games”. Their R&D team has produced wonders such as the WiiMote and a whole series of Mario games that are just incredibly fun. I have tried all Mario games on Nintendo DS with my kids and I have to admit their teams did a brilliant job of finding the correct mix of gameplay, renewed interest and long-term addiction that fits both young children and adults alike.

Direct consequence of the hardware rush: browse PS/3 or Xbox games and you find mostly gore, violent stuff targetted for teenagers (and teenagers only), or car races or whatever else has already been invented 20 years ago. Even if the final result is close to perfection in terms of image and sound quality, it still remains at heart variations around the theme of Doom, Warcraft, realistic races and other sport simulations. Give game producers a really powerful game engine and they will try and make the best use of it. But since they do not want to take risks — given the price tag today for game development you cannot blame them — they keep producing the same shit over and over ad nauseam, looking better and sounding more real than ever.

The second smart move from Nintendo was to reduce hardware performance compared to the other vendors. If you have an excellent game, it does not need to have perfect image or sound, you will still want to play it.  Mario games are all cartoony, which gives them in my opinion a much better user perception. Like books, the less you have descriptions, the more you rely on your reader’s imagination to complete the missing parts. In all Mario games the key visual items are obvious and the kids tend to complete the world background by themselves, breathing life into elementary characters.

As a father and a consumer, there are two factors I will take into consideration before buying a game console: price and game quality. Even after the latest rebates from Microsoft on Xboxes, the Wii remains cheaper both for console and games. As far as games are concerned, my kids do not want to play blood games, they want cute cartoony characters that make funny grunts.

Only remaining issue to solve: we have no TV set, and I have absolutely no intention of getting one. This will have to wait until Nintendo releases a Wii that can directly connect to my computer monitor, I’m afraid.

Sorry, kids.