4 ms·

>It's crazy looking back and seeing how different everything was. Yeah, that struck me as well. For some reason, I expected their tooling to be much more moder

>It's crazy looking back and seeing how different everything was. Yeah, that struck me as well. For some reason, I expected their tooling to be much more modern, but then you see them running Windows XP, and I have this visceral reaction like, "Oh no! You can't be running that!" They also go to a "trade show" which you find out is actually a ColdFusion conference. But even at the time, that was pretty dated, and the interns admit they're not sure what ColdFusion is. I was impressed reading Joel's functional spec at how well it holds up. I don't think it's a very popular way of designing software anymore, but I still prefer big design up front (BDUF), and I suspect Joel probably still works that way. The only thing that felt dated to me about the functional spec was 1) the emphasis on code conventions, which he admitted at the time didn't belong in the spec, and 2) how it focused a lot on what would happen in v2 rather than aggressively keeping scope to the MVP.

mickeyp 3y ago
You can't corral a bunch of interns -- of potentially unknown skills levels, even with our hindsight of where they wound up -- and expect them to wing their way through a "greenfield" project to launch in 10-or-so weeks. Especially not when you're filming them also. Imagine them arguing endlessly about how many points to give to the VNC extensions they needed? And at a time when most businesses had maybe heard of agile, but never used it. Functional specs are super-duper common still. I do (often fixed-cost) bespoke software for clients: can you imagine a non-tech client and me handwaving our way through a complex project one sprint at a time? No, thank you. Having said all that, Joel's a talented guy, and he probably had a really good idea of what he'd have to do to build the whole thing. When people like that write the functional spec, you're going to wind up with a high-quality document.
- ozim 3y ago
  I think that is my main issue with "Business Analysts" I have to work with. Most of the time they have no clue at all about the system and no writing ability. They just throw ideas in Jira tickets and if you start asking questions or clarifications to put ticket back for rewrite they nag you are not agile enough and dragging whole company back to waterfall.
mojomark 3y ago
Thank you for this comment - I'm a physical systems engineer working with software engineers and trying to bridge the gap from a "Systems Engineering" perspective - where on the HW side we use Functional (what the system should do) and Allocated specifications (how the system is physically architected). I struggle with that bridge - it's largely a terminology mismatch, which is oddly much more difficult than I expected to overcome. Sometimes finding the right words makes all the difference. I'd never heard the term BDUF before. I can see that there's a belief that the BDUF approach implies the design must be perfected before starting to code. I like a healthy concept sketch to use as a roadmap, and evolving accompanying documentation along the way. I use MBSE tools. I certainly would never say a system design is perfected nor are all requirements ever set in stone (under config control - yes, immutable - no). This helps me see where push back is coming from of the SW Dev side.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
canucker2016 3y ago
Having read most of Spolsky's blog posts, I'll make the inference that the spec being functional and having reference to code conventions isn't a far stretch for him. He worked at Microsoft in the Excel group, specifically, he was a Program Manager (PM) on Visual Basic for Applications (VBA). see bottom of https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/04/25/vba-for-macintosh-goes-away/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/04/25/vba-for-macintosh-... and https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/06/16/my-first-billg-review/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/06/16/my-first-billg-rev... Functional specs and PMs go hand in hand at MS. Microsoft devs, at least in certain groups, used the Hungarian coding convention (Systems aka DOS/Windows group had one dialect, Apps aka Office had another dialect) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation This seeped into VB/VBA as well.
mixmastamyk 3y ago
Windows XP has a lot less bullshit than the recent versions. I'd definitely take it now over 10 or 11, behind a firewall/NAT of course. ;-) Just needs a modernish browser and third-party terminal. cygwin tools or equivalent.
- hermitcrab 3y ago
  Windows XP was so much less intrusive than the more recent versions of Windows. You actually felt like you were in charge, most of the time anyway.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  It also lacked a firewall at launch, despite claims to its great security.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  Quite possibly the peak Windows version (with service packs). The default UI was certainly tacky, but you could switch to Classic. Windows 7 is a close second.

mickeyp 3y ago

You can't corral a bunch of interns -- of potentially unknown skills levels, even with our hindsight of where they wound up -- and expect them to wing their way through a "greenfield" project to launch in 10-or-so weeks. Especially not when you're filming them also. Imagine them arguing endlessly about how many points to give to the VNC extensions they needed? And at a time when most businesses had maybe heard of agile, but never used it. Functional specs are super-duper common still. I do (often fixed-cost) bespoke software for clients: can you imagine a non-tech client and me handwaving our way through a complex project one sprint at a time? No, thank you. Having said all that, Joel's a talented guy, and he probably had a really good idea of what he'd have to do to build the whole thing. When people like that write the functional spec, you're going to wind up with a high-quality document.

ozim 3y ago
I think that is my main issue with "Business Analysts" I have to work with. Most of the time they have no clue at all about the system and no writing ability. They just throw ideas in Jira tickets and if you start asking questions or clarifications to put ticket back for rewrite they nag you are not agile enough and dragging whole company back to waterfall.

mojomark 3y ago

Thank you for this comment - I'm a physical systems engineer working with software engineers and trying to bridge the gap from a "Systems Engineering" perspective - where on the HW side we use Functional (what the system should do) and Allocated specifications (how the system is physically architected). I struggle with that bridge - it's largely a terminology mismatch, which is oddly much more difficult than I expected to overcome. Sometimes finding the right words makes all the difference. I'd never heard the term BDUF before. I can see that there's a belief that the BDUF approach implies the design must be perfected before starting to code. I like a healthy concept sketch to use as a roadmap, and evolving accompanying documentation along the way. I use MBSE tools. I certainly would never say a system design is perfected nor are all requirements ever set in stone (under config control - yes, immutable - no). This helps me see where push back is coming from of the SW Dev side.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

canucker2016 3y ago

Having read most of Spolsky's blog posts, I'll make the inference that the spec being functional and having reference to code conventions isn't a far stretch for him. He worked at Microsoft in the Excel group, specifically, he was a Program Manager (PM) on Visual Basic for Applications (VBA). see bottom of https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/04/25/vba-for-macintosh-goes-away/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2007/04/25/vba-for-macintosh-... and https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/06/16/my-first-billg-review/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/06/16/my-first-billg-rev... Functional specs and PMs go hand in hand at MS. Microsoft devs, at least in certain groups, used the Hungarian coding convention (Systems aka DOS/Windows group had one dialect, Apps aka Office had another dialect) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation This seeped into VB/VBA as well.

mixmastamyk 3y ago

Windows XP has a lot less bullshit than the recent versions. I'd definitely take it now over 10 or 11, behind a firewall/NAT of course. ;-) Just needs a modernish browser and third-party terminal. cygwin tools or equivalent.

hermitcrab 3y ago
Windows XP was so much less intrusive than the more recent versions of Windows. You actually felt like you were in charge, most of the time anyway.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
It also lacked a firewall at launch, despite claims to its great security.
The_Colonel 3y ago
Quite possibly the peak Windows version (with service packs). The default UI was certainly tacky, but you could switch to Classic. Windows 7 is a close second.