Bugs in EA

[raymondsing]

We know that it is almost impossible for substantial size software to be 100% bug-free.

However, is EA getting hit by the bugs too many times?

Wonder how many of the bugs could have been detected and rectified - because a related bug was discovered - but was not.
If trying to release bug fixes and new features in a short time is the cause, I wonder whether this will help: Take longer time to include new features (be more thorough in testing), continue to release bug fixes in short period but with more thorough testing.

Hopefully that will increase the reputation and less frustration and wasted time (because of bugs) for us.

[Alan Inglis]

Having used several "main stream" modelling tools, my subjective impression is that there have been less bugs in EA than others.  The response when a bug is found and to new features is exceptional, as is the rate of improvement of product capability.  I find it hard to believe that this would  have been sustained for the length of time it has been if the underlying structure of the code was poor or the quality of testing was poor.

We have copies of other vendors tools on our machines that are 20 times the price of EA.  We are so frustrated with their lack of functionality and poor support that only use them if a client insists.

[Philip_Avery]

Bugs exist in all but the most trivial of applications and may not be discovered for some time after release despite extensive testing and subsequent use. What is important is the company's attitude to fixing them. When most other things are equal, I advise clients to choose non-mainstream software on the basis of the availability and frequency of a bug-fix list. It shows an active and responsive company. I know beta testers for Microsoft who tear out their hair because they are still reporting major bugs in a candidate release only to find that it has been sent for manufacture. I have given up reporting bugs to MS because apart from thanking me they do nothing.

The support for EA is, as Alan says, exceptional, as is their response for feature implementation - sometimes embarrassingly so. I often feel guilty (but not too guilty) for asking because of the speedy and enthusiastic responses.

We should all be very, very grateful that we have discovered EA.

Philip

[manfred]

Well, I think there is no reputation problem for EA and I have a hard time to find frustrated users in this community. And I belive these kind of statements ar just not fair. You will have to search long for a product of this quality and features, the affordable price tag, and THAT exceptional maintenance!

If you search for bug-free software, there is a group in Huston, writing software for the space shuttle..... but you won't be able to carry the price tag for THEIR testing methods. (read an article on them recently...)

Manfred

[ro]

In spite of many (small and large) bugs   in EA I think that it is the best tool for drawing UML schemes for the good price.
I am glad that EA is constantly developed   and still will be.
I wish EA was really full professional tool. I hope that Creators will try to do it and EA will be successfully improved  .

With compliments,
ro

[Duc-bert]

Have you try STP or ROSE lately? If you have, you would agree that EA is the best, inexpensive CASE Tool out there. I also like the positive attitude of G. Sparx when I report a bug. Sometimes it's a real bug and sometimes it's just my lack of knowledge and G. Sparx gracefully point it out to me. Thanks G. Sparx, keep up the great work.

[ronnie]

I've been doing a lot of reading about current processes / methodologies.

Release often and close contact with users is believed to provide a faster and more reliable solution to many of the classical approaches.

XP's iterations and Agile development bring these into formal methods and open-source is at the other extreme.

In my oppinion, Sparx et al and EA is a testament to this and a bloody good one at that!

Ronnie