January 22, 2009 14:27
Since you have no idea what I did as a gov't engineer, I won't take offense at your slander. My "customers" were the pilots whose planes my missiles defended, and I took my job very seriously indeed, for if I didn't, they died. Can you say any of your jobs had that kind of responsibility?
Now, back to the subject at hand. If a standard says "send this string" and then says "here is the response", and you send the string and the hardware doesn't do the response, then the hardware is failing the standard. Simple, no? So then, should the software say "for this send X, for that send Y, for that send Z, for that send..." because X, Y, and Z say they're compliant when they're not? And if the software doesn't try to handle every piece of hardware out there (since it's sending standard strings), is it to blame?
I ask, as I'm curious as to your philosophy and approach to what software should be. Does YOUR software handle every piece of hardware that claims to be NMEA compliant? If so, how?
Now, back to the subject at hand. If a standard says "send this string" and then says "here is the response", and you send the string and the hardware doesn't do the response, then the hardware is failing the standard. Simple, no? So then, should the software say "for this send X, for that send Y, for that send Z, for that send..." because X, Y, and Z say they're compliant when they're not? And if the software doesn't try to handle every piece of hardware out there (since it's sending standard strings), is it to blame?
I ask, as I'm curious as to your philosophy and approach to what software should be. Does YOUR software handle every piece of hardware that claims to be NMEA compliant? If so, how?