3 ms·
Every problem should in theory have some of breaking it down I don't see why we should expect that to be the case. For example, I once had to implement an algo
by Silhouette 7y ago
Every problem should in theory have some of breaking it down
I don't see why we should expect that to be the case. For example, I once had to implement an algorithm to visualise a certain set of data using a certain type of diagram, where there were a lot of technical factors that determined exactly how that diagram should be drawn. IIRC, it took a few weeks to implement that algorithm, but there weren't any natural breaks where you could, say, draw only half of the data set or half of the diagram features and get a meaningful result. It was inherently a relatively complicated, all-or-nothing feature.
- bArray 7y agoIt's hard to argue a feature I haven't seen, but just the fact you are able to program the feature means you were somehow able to break it up into a series of steps. Okay, breaking it down wouldn't produce something workable in itself, but it should produce something measurable, testable even. For example: Step 1 : Extract relevant data Step 2 : Massage data into the correct format for graphing Step 3 : Graphing tool visualization for simple example data set Step 4 : Write tests for graphing/visualization Step 5 : Plug real data into graphing tool
- Silhouette 7y agoYes, it was implemented in a series of steps, but the cumulative result of those steps had zero business value and was not something that would ever have been released to customers until the final step was done.