4 ms·

You've misquoted me, but I should have written it like CODEC. I agree on intent, and probably agree on usefulness, but I think my point was more that this is a

You've misquoted me, but I should have written it like CODEC. I agree on intent, and probably agree on usefulness, but I think my point was more that this is an older process from a time before instant and direct communication. I see it as introducing a layer of thought that doesn't need to exist if I can just ask someone from the source domain to send me their notes and walk me through them. We're probably using the same data format by now. Again, I'm not saying the method isn't useful or appropriate, just that you won't see it as often now thanks to easier communication.

rramadass 3y ago
> You've misquoted me, but I should have written it like CODEC. My mistake, i thought you meant "code" where you wrote "codec". > my point was more that this is an older process from a time before instant and direct communication. I see it as introducing a layer of thought that doesn't need to exist if I can just ask someone from the source domain to send me their notes and walk me through them. Not quite true. No amount of instant/direct communication can help in removing ambiguity from "normal" Human communication. You need to have a method which enforces rigour and precision in the communication technique. That's what Decision Tables and other formal/mathematical methods help you with.