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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: "Paolo F. Cantoni" Subject: Re: Which wastes more time? (Was Re: Software landmines (loops)) Date: 1998/09/11 Message-ID: <6t9fv2$30v$1@the-fly.zip.com.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 389876904 References: <6sff74$q0s@gurney.reilly.home> <6sh2j5$jnl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35EC2E5A.16DB6CB1@bigfoot-.com> <6sjc0a$1lk$3@news.indigo.ie> <35EFB09E.15412933@s054.aone.net.au> <35f2bd98.40599408@news.erols.com> <35F06A58.F968BDE1@s054.aone.net.au> <35f48276.90997557@news.erols.com> <35F0C3C9.D1E56FF3@s054.aone.net.au> <6t6o05$k8u$1@the-fly.zip.com.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Organization: -Semantica- Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Hi Patrick, Patrick Logan wrote in message ... >In comp.object Paolo F. Cantoni wrote: [SNIP...] >: >The way I explain my objection to this inheritance relationship is >: >that the design may be too rigid for the requirements. Rather than >: >assume I share some concept of reality with the customer, I would ask >: >the customer if the system must responsible for tracking people that >: >become car owners and people who stop being car owners. Even if the >: >customer says no, I would still lean toward supporting that >: >possibility in teh future. > >: Then why did you ask the client? You seem to have intended to ignore their >: answer... (NOTE: Not flaming, just asking...) > >The customer supplies the requirements. The developer supplies the >implementation to meet the requirements. If I thought the requirements >might change in the future, and I could do something to support those >anticipated changes (or at least _not_ do something that would >prohibit those anticipated changes) then I am free to do so. It all >must fit within the cost/benefit curve. So it is not ignoring the >customer. It is adding a developer's experience to what the customer >says. So long as the current implementation does not support people who stop being car owners then we've met the requirements. Having re-read you original point, especially in the light of your answer - that implication is pretty (though obviously not absolutely) clear. Personally, I persist in trying to understand the client's logic when their view of the problem space is not the same as mine. Often, by teasing out some pertinent, but usually unspoken fact - either the client accepts your view, you both realise there were problems in your respective views or you see why you should do _exactly_ what the client asks. (Usually, its the former two :-) ) >-- >Patrick Logan (H) mailto:plogan@teleport.com > (W) mailto:patrickl@gemstone.com > http://www.gemstone.com Regardz, Paolo F. Cantoni Tel: +61-2-9498 5945 Director Fax: +61-2-9418 4402 -Semantica- Cell: +61-416 11 00 95 Suite 2, Charing House EMail: pcantoni@semantica.com.au 45 Kendall Street Web: http://www.semantica.com.au Pymble NSW 2073 AUSTRALIA "Many problems turn out to be caused by invalid concepts. Conceptual Modelling provides techniques for solving them..." -Semantica- can help your organisation understand itself better and thus operate more effectively and efficiently...