4 ms·

Is this comment a sarcastic response ? I really couldn't tell.

by NhanH 10y ago

polskibus 10y ago
It wasn't meant to be sarcastic. In my opinion coding vs knowledge architect is false dichotomy if you embrace DDD.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  Yes and no. Ubiquitous language depends on agreement between all the major stakeholders -- technology and business alike (That's why it's ubiquitous) I'd shoot for that, and give DDD a pass. It's difficult, nary impossible, to get even medium-sized groups of people in alignment in regards to language. So do the analysis, keep working on that, and leave the code to the coders. That's a win. But it ain't architecture. It's analysis. Sidebar: does anybody do analysis any more? I see either complete neglect of it, it being done as some sort of rote order-taking, or as the full-pass-through OOA/D/P in the GP.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    In case studies with formal methods, specification languages like Z are used to make the requirements more clear. Such methods have shown to work pretty well with both programmers and laypersons learning it easily. This means a separate methodology or whatever might not be necessary if we just needed a less, ambiguous language. Of which there are many with some having tool support. Example of one methodology that uses Z in safety-critical field with low defect results: http://www.sis.pitt.edu/jjoshi/Devsec/CorrectnessByConstruction.pdf http://www.sis.pitt.edu/jjoshi/Devsec/CorrectnessByConstruct...
    - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
      I think perhaps you do not understand what I am saying. Yes, there are quite a few such tools which allow laypeople and coders to come to an agreement. My point was about coming to and maintaining that agreement. Not how exactly you would go about doing that. I could think of about half-a-dozen good ways to formalize a domain. But even if your process is nothing more than "come to this room and let's talk"? It's difficult to get many people with many other duties in such a situation as much as it would be required. Don't forget -- and I'm sure you haven't -- that it's not just formalizing a language and grammar. It's the fact that these change over time as participants become more absorbed in the domain and see the same concepts from various viewpoints.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. Those are good points.
      - polskibus 10y ago
        Which tools would you recommend for achieving agreement ? Any particular technique or framework ?
  - optimuspaul 10y ago
    WTF is OOA/D/P in the GP? Is that a thing?
    - syngrog66 10y ago
      hint: google for OOA
nickpsecurity 10y ago
I see what you're saying as that thought occurred to me haha. Only thing that kept me from saying what you did is that it sounds very similar to model-driven development. Plus, I bumped into it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_development_philosophies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_development_p... Followed by this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-driven_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-driven_design There was a company that I had bookmarked that did enterprise software by defining ontologies that got converted into code or something. I can't find it but this link seems similar. Stuff does have some use in actual applications. http://www.mkbergman.com/948/ontology-driven-apps-using-generic-applications/ http://www.mkbergman.com/948/ontology-driven-apps-using-gene...

Is this comment a sarcastic response ? I really couldn't tell.

by NhanH 10y ago

Is this comment a sarcastic response ? I really couldn't tell.

polskibus 10y ago

It wasn't meant to be sarcastic. In my opinion coding vs knowledge architect is false dichotomy if you embrace DDD.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Yes and no. Ubiquitous language depends on agreement between all the major stakeholders -- technology and business alike (That's why it's ubiquitous) I'd shoot for that, and give DDD a pass. It's difficult, nary impossible, to get even medium-sized groups of people in alignment in regards to language. So do the analysis, keep working on that, and leave the code to the coders. That's a win. But it ain't architecture. It's analysis. Sidebar: does anybody do analysis any more? I see either complete neglect of it, it being done as some sort of rote order-taking, or as the full-pass-through OOA/D/P in the GP.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  In case studies with formal methods, specification languages like Z are used to make the requirements more clear. Such methods have shown to work pretty well with both programmers and laypersons learning it easily. This means a separate methodology or whatever might not be necessary if we just needed a less, ambiguous language. Of which there are many with some having tool support. Example of one methodology that uses Z in safety-critical field with low defect results: http://www.sis.pitt.edu/jjoshi/Devsec/CorrectnessByConstruction.pdf http://www.sis.pitt.edu/jjoshi/Devsec/CorrectnessByConstruct...
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    I think perhaps you do not understand what I am saying. Yes, there are quite a few such tools which allow laypeople and coders to come to an agreement. My point was about coming to and maintaining that agreement. Not how exactly you would go about doing that. I could think of about half-a-dozen good ways to formalize a domain. But even if your process is nothing more than "come to this room and let's talk"? It's difficult to get many people with many other duties in such a situation as much as it would be required. Don't forget -- and I'm sure you haven't -- that it's not just formalizing a language and grammar. It's the fact that these change over time as participants become more absorbed in the domain and see the same concepts from various viewpoints.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. Those are good points.
    - polskibus 10y ago
      Which tools would you recommend for achieving agreement ? Any particular technique or framework ?
- optimuspaul 10y ago
  WTF is OOA/D/P in the GP? Is that a thing?
  - syngrog66 10y ago
    hint: google for OOA

nickpsecurity 10y ago

I see what you're saying as that thought occurred to me haha. Only thing that kept me from saying what you did is that it sounds very similar to model-driven development. Plus, I bumped into it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_development_philosophies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_development_p... Followed by this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-driven_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-driven_design There was a company that I had bookmarked that did enterprise software by defining ontologies that got converted into code or something. I can't find it but this link seems similar. Stuff does have some use in actual applications. http://www.mkbergman.com/948/ontology-driven-apps-using-generic-applications/ http://www.mkbergman.com/948/ontology-driven-apps-using-gene...