4 ms·
To me, that’s like complaining that software requirements are written by software people instead of user representatives; sure, you can do it the other way arou
by danielheath 3y ago
To me, that’s like complaining that software requirements are written by software people instead of user representatives; sure, you can do it the other way around, but it largely leads to poorly written requirements.
- thghtihadanacct 3y ago... but at least those poorly written requirements benefit the user. I would rather less than perfect rules written to benefit me, the citizen, than calculated rules written to benefit corporations that have enough money to play this shell game.
- arcticbull 3y agoPoorly written requirements benefit someone, but there's not really any reason to think it would benefit you specifically. They may just as well benefit someone who seeks to harm you, or at minimum doesn't care what happens to you.
- danielheath 3y agoIf the user wants software that actually meets their needs, they want the requirements to be reasonably unambiguous, to have interactions with other tech thought through, etc. To achieve that requires special training, and paying someone with that training to figure that stuff out is a good idea. If you want laws that actually function in the legal system, pay a lawyer to write them (at your direction). "Written by a lawyer" does not mean "to represent the lawyers interests" any more than "written by a developer" means "to represent the developers interests".
- midoridensha 3y agoIn more formal environments, software requirements are NOT written by software engineers: they're written by systems engineers.