Re: Reminder, blatant ad

Todd wrote:
> Hello Dawn,
>
> I do respect many of your opinions, but maybe you could give me more
> insight. It seems in many of your past postings, that:
>
> 1) You think that throwing data control (I mean real life 'facts' here,
> not bits on a hard drive) into the domain of the developer (who is a
> person that really has no connection with the data) is a good thing.

Perhaps we need to define developer. I am calling anyone who is developing software a "developer." Perhaps we need to define software?  It is everything "stored on" a computer that is not hardware. Does that work for you? That would be "soft stuff" that can change, compared to the hardware. I haven't thought long and hard about that definition, but that is how I perceive it.

Some parts of this software could be like propositions that can be used as input or output, while other aspects of this software could be functions that operate on input to produce output. But it's all software.

> In other words,
>
> Me: 'Hey, developer, build me a sandwich'

--d: smile when you call me that

> D: 'OK, I can do that, what do you have in the fridge?'

--d: how hungry are you? are you a vegetarian? do you prefer whole wheat? Does anyone else need a sandwich? ...more attempts to ascertain requirements.

> Me: 'I don't know, go look at it and figure it out. Oh, and here's a
> knife if you need it'

--d: at this point I tell you to make it yourself, but I'll play along

> D: 'Hmm, OK I'll do my best. Did you want mustard with that? Maybe
> you might want to know if somebody else wants mustard? Wait a second
> ... is there somebody else?'

I know I'll often miss something in spite of considerable efforts in requirements elicitation, but hopefully not something that big.

> Me: 'Well, that's not important right now, is it?'

Sure it is. I might have to be careful how much of the cheese I use up on your sandwich.

> 2) You seem to sing 'convenience' in many of your posts (under the
> hoods).

Productivity for software developers as users of various tools. If you call that convenience...

> Personally, and perhaps unfortunately, I think we can't always
> be convenient when it comes to modelling reality.

No, but we can usually improve on user experience and productivity when we decide those are important.

> 3) It's almost like you're trying to say that RM is this thing that we
> have to 'put up' with.

In fact, I think it is something that we DON'T have to put up with ;-)

> You could be correct in a 'convenient' way, but
> wrong in a 'correct' way. Think about it.

Oh, you know I do.

> 4) Keep up the discussion. I enjoy it immensely. I'll certainly be
> perusing your blog every now and again.

Thanks, Todd. Cheers! --dawn

> Todd
Received on Sat Jan 28 2006 - 21:51:16 CET