4 ms·

> you need to prove that it's a good idea and that you've made a significant investment yourself ... like thinking through the interface, and as many use cases

> you need to prove that it's a good idea and that you've made a significant investment yourself ... like thinking through the interface, and as many use cases / stories as you can think of, and describing in detail the problem(s) being solved. That sounds exactly like the skillset of a good software engineer. This whole debate is about the fact that a whole bunch of people don't know how to break down a large problem into small logical pieces. "describing in detail the problem(s) being solved" is about the most concise and accurate description of programming I can think of. Asking someone non-technical to do this is like asking a ramen noodle-eater to describe in detail the process of flambéing Steak Diane.

rapind 14y ago
I agree it's a good skill to have in many careers, software engineer included, but it is definitely not the definition of programmer. If you wanted to map this skill to a profession, I'd probably go with Business Analyst being the closest. Breaking a problem down into solvable parts is something I was taught in math and it was invaluable. I'd written programs before and after that, so I wouldn't say that this technique makes you a programmer. Rather it's an approach you'll need to be a good programmer. Asking someone non-technical to describe the problem they want to solve in detail is completely within the realm of reason. Non-technical != moron. Knowing how to do this, does not make you a programmer. Likewise, being a programmer doesn't make you good at this.