"works to product specification" - who writes these things???

[TomU]

Saw this come through today: https://www.ptc.com/appserver/cs/view/solution.jsp?n=CS174472

Who writes these things? Why would anyone write a product spec to randomly name files when batch printing?

I could understand if they said, "oops, we didn't think about that", but instead, "we designed the product to name your files is such a way so that you have absolutely no idea what they are." Really?

[dgschaefer]

Ask to see the spec that called for this behavior.  I complained about the old "Intended functionality" that we'd always get to a higher up in customer service at the user conference years ago and that's what he said to do.  If that's the specification, they should be able to produce it.

And I agree, that's a really dumb spec.  The only way that makes sense is if showing multiple images significantly degrades graphics performance.

[TomU]

I've tried.  Eventually some upper level tech support manager calls to say that's what the spec. says but they won't ever actually send me anything to prove it.

[Chris3]

I have tried that too. The mass properties report omits any components that have 0 volume. In my case I am running that report to see which components have 0 volume but some programmer thought it would be better to omit those from the report to save a few nano seconds of computation time. I got the "works to product specification". I then asked to see the specification and was told that I couldn't see it.

I wouldn't be surprised if "works to product specification" means in some cases that the code is so old that there is no specification and the folks who originally wrote it are no longer around anymore. PTC has a habit of buying bolt on functionality and then dropping support for it.