From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 101deb,3488d9e5d292649f X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,e6a2e4a4c0d7d8a6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-23 10:34:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!easynet-quince!easynet.net!cox.net!p01!news1.west.cox.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3E59147C.9000908@cox.net> From: "Donald L. Dobbs" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of PL/I as a viable language References: <3E51908E.9CCA3412@adaworks.com> <8Gh4a.7455$_c6.743959@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3E51ABCE.5491B9A2@adaworks.com> <3E5273DE.2050206@cox.net> <3E531E6F.BDFB2599@adaworks.com> <3E546C45.4010406@cox.net> <3E54F926.441D5BB5@adaworks.com> <1045763933.848350@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <42EA55F4BE83950E.F1DA277C2FDC157B.C804C1C52FE95D65@lp.airnews.net> <1045769690.126389@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1045839419.823502@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3E568EF3.A244212A@adaworks.com> <3E569E8C.4050709@cox.net> <1CY5a.280$oY6.106@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:34:18 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.4.138.157 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net X-Trace: news1.west.cox.net 1046025258 68.4.138.157 (Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:34:18 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:34:18 EST Organization: Cox Communications Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.pl1:4439 comp.lang.ada:34484 Date: 2003-02-23T18:34:18+00:00 List-Id: Hyman Rosen wrote: > Donald L. Dobbs wrote: > >> the S.A. wrote an air-tight spec that the coder was to rigorously >> implement. > > > I've rarely seen domain experts who are capable of producing air-tight > specs. > They have several problems. They speak in the language of their domain, > which > is not the language of the programmer. They know their domain so well that > they fail to explain the things which are obvious to them. And because they > do not think like programmers, their specs rarely cover the > corner-cases, so > that they leak badly rather than being air-tight. In fact, they often > have no > answer for what to do in these cases, because they have never seen them! > You have obviously never worked on a really huge software development project. Also, you are assuming that no further discourse takes place between analyst and programmer and that there are no reviews and checkpoints along the way. If you have a subject matter expert and an excellent programmer both assigned to a project you get the best of both worlds. When you try to find some one individual who purports to be both you end up with mediocre subject matter expertise compromised by the conflict of interest because the programmer hat is telling the subject matter hat to go easy on certain legitimate requirements. There is tons of crap in the marketplace today that tries to pass itself off as software. It is usually incomplete from a domain standpoint and is poorly coded to boot. It takes a beta release and several version upgrades before the product really becomes useful. The manufacturer is letting the customer (the subject matter expert in this case) do his homework for him -- both in design and debugging. We just didn't have those situations with the products I was associated with. I've observed both approaches, been involved in both approaches and experienced both approaches. I merely report my observations and remain unmoved by your response.