Re: Reminder, blatant ad

dawn wrote:
> Todd wrote:
> > 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.

What works for you then? Flexibility or stability? Can we achieve both? Don't get me wrong. I think you are flexing some good muscle.

>
> 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

Coincidence. D was supposed to mean Developer, not Dawn. Sorry about that if you took it that way.

> > 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.

Well, I suppose I was getting at the fact that it seems that some of what you suggest screams lack of data integrity, and in trying to get that point across, I dropped into a client situation (the dialog above would have me as the client) which is frequent in any kind of database design. I was simply trying to say that some of what you suggest may be putting a scarier load on the developer. Chaos where something should be stable. Initial condition: client gives you bad data, or no data; client gives you bad metadata; Result: chaos gives you a terrible headache as everything may spin out of control. Sensitivity to initial conditions, you get the idea...

> > 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...

Productivity. What is that exactly. I assume you mean that developers make money for a small amount of time spent, ease of maintenance of software, blah blah. Well, at this point, I still need some convincing.

> > 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.

BTW, this was not meant as a jibe. I really am interested in what you have to say.

> Thanks, Todd. Cheers! --dawn
>

Todd Received on Sun Jan 29 2006 - 04:48:09 CET