Re: Hokay, I officially give up...
Mathieu Bouchard <matju-i8w/[email protected]> Fri, 22 May 2009 12:15:23 -0400 (EDT)
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.language-of-the-year |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Dave Stagner wrote: > A system that can do failover, but only with the correct admins to > babysit and deal with surprises, "barely works". So, why do you insist on calling it "barely works" instead of "meeting requirements"? Then you could say something like "when people focus on meeting requirements, requirements are met, and non-requirements are not usually met, because meeting requirements is what they focus on, unlike meeting non-requirements" and also "when requirements are not enough, augment requirements using any non-requirements that you think are actually required". > In order to rise above "barely works", software would have to > significantly exceed requirements, no? If some form of rising above "barely works" becomes a requirement, then it gets codified into a requirement so that we're back to being happy with "barely working", but at a higher level of barely working? I mean, just like the high-availability site vs the small e-commerce site; you bet the former started as a small site that became gradually more important. > And who wastes resources on significantly exceeding requirements, AND > maintaining that level of excellence over the entire project lifecycle? People exceeding requirements, who are judged on the basis of requirements being met, want those excesses to be codified as new requirements, lest those excesses get judged as plain waste. Judges (managers) who look at excesses of a project will look for any ideas for future requirements, such that in retrospect, excesses would be retroactively considered as meeting (future) requirements, and this is how they'd distinguish good excesses from bad excesses. This manner of judging is what is meant by "focusing on requirements". When everything revolves around requirements, this is what you get, and you can pronounce "meeting requirements" as "barely getting it to work", but it's just words. > Well, besides what Ron said... I didn't call anyone "stupid". If I thought someone was really stupid I just wouldn't reply. I hope that you will understand what I mean when I write what I write. Am I understanding you? _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec