software requirements again, take 483
in [Perl]
|
From: Ted Zlatanov on 9 Apr 2010 11:55 On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:33:41 -0400 Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur(a)chromatico.net> wrote: CW> It has become apparent that coming up with terse bits of wisdom that fit CW> comfortably within four lines may be my only real shot at immortality. Hey, it worked for Martial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial) Ted
From: David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 10 Apr 2010 22:36 On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 20:25:52 -0400, Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur(a)chromatico.net> wrote: [...] > The fundamental rule, however, is that before you type a single > character of Perl you should have a clear, unambiguous statement, agreed > to by the business owner of the process you're automating or > facilitating, of what the requirements are for the phase of development > that you're in. In most orginisations that will never ever happen.
From: Charlton Wilbur on 11 Apr 2010 18:43 >>>>> "DF" == David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dformosa(a)usyd.edu.au> writes: DF> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 20:25:52 -0400, Charlton Wilbur DF> <cwilbur(a)chromatico.net> wrote: >> The fundamental rule, however, is that before you type a single >> character of Perl you should have a clear, unambiguous statement, >> agreed to by the business owner of the process you're automating >> or facilitating, of what the requirements are for the phase of >> development that you're in. DF> In most orginisations that will never ever happen. I refuse to believe that my organization is that unusual. Admittedly, the statements tend to start out at a high-level, but the high-level requirements and most of the medium-level requirements are in place before any coding starts. A lot of the low-level requirements are hashed out between developers and business owners when the need for them becomes apparent. Do people in "most organizations" *really* start coding madly before anyone has a clear idea of what the problem to be solved is? Charlton -- Charlton Wilbur cwilbur(a)chromatico.net
From: David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) on 12 Apr 2010 16:26 On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:44:04 -0700, J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [...] > And I cannot imagine how email or the Internet or Usenet would work > without any written specs and protocols. Usenet and email both where cases where existing protocols where documented after they where implimented rather then the other way around.
From: RedGrittyBrick on 13 Apr 2010 14:45
On 12/04/2010 21:26, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote: > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:44:04 -0700, Jürgen Exner<jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > [...] >> And I cannot imagine how email or the Internet or Usenet would work >> without any written specs and protocols. > > Usenet and email both where cases where existing protocols where > documented after they where implimented rather then the other way > around. I believe Jürgen's point is that the specification for those protocols was agreed on and written down. Subsequent developers of e-mail software have benefited enormously from this. As have users. Contrast this with proprietary email systems such as cc:Mail where there were few, if any, directly interoperable implementations from other vendors. I remember the era before corporations adopted Intenet mail standards - it was a mess of complex expensive e-mail gateways. Contrast also with OSI X.400 where you had to pay to see the standards and where the standards specified huge numbers of options to satisfy various vendors, with the outcome that few implementations implemented all the options and consequently interoperability was limited. As I understand it, the IETF standards process always required several working implementations of a protocol before the draft standard could be ratified. The RFCs were, and are, a vitally important part of the Internet's success. -- RGB |