6 ms·

> Specs are a way of life where I work. I would hope that everyone would be good or learn to become good at writing useful precise specs. I was honestly hoping

by mbell 14y ago

> Specs are a way of life where I work. I would hope that everyone would be good or learn to become good at writing useful precise specs. I was honestly hoping this was a joke, but I don't think it was. By the time someone writes an accurate spec, the business need has already changed. Spec's don't work.

LnxPrgr3 14y ago
By the time someone writes the software, the business need has already changed. Software doesn't work. What? Since when did specs become immutable? Needs have changed? Patch the spec. It's faster than patching the software. From http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000036.html http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000036.html: "The most important function of a spec is to design the program. Even if you are working on code all by yourself, and you write a spec solely for your own benefit, the act of writing the spec -- describing how the program works in minute detail -- will force you to actually design the program." Sure, you'll still find out the design was wrong in some areas, and you'll have to change it. But at least you'll have a design to start from, as opposed to a hodgepodge of features carelessly tossed into the interface wherever the programmers found it most convenient to stick them, implemented in whatever way made the most sense to the programmers at the time.
- mbell 14y ago
  > Since when did specs become immutable? Needs have changed? Patch the spec. It's faster than patching the software. I don't understand how this can be faster. You patch the spec, then patch the software to match. I can't see how the spec could be patched faster. That is unless you patch the spec in isolation, prior to writing any code, which is a bigger mess. I've never, ever seen any group that can write a spec in isolation prior to writing code to demonstrate it, and have it come out well, its usually a disaster.
  - LnxPrgr3 14y ago
    Did you read the link I posted? The idea is by having a spec, you're more likely to see where it needs to be patched upfront, before delivering poorly designed software to angry customers, so you spend less time re-working it later on. > I've never, ever seen any group that can write a spec in isolation prior to writing code to demonstrate it, and have it come out well, its usually a disaster. Can you elaborate? I'd be interested in hearing what they were building, who (in general terms) they were building it for, how they went about writing the specs, and what went wrong. My experience has been completely different, and I'm curious as to why that is. Edit: Of course you can't expect the customer to write the spec. Designing the software is your job. But that doesn't mean specs are broken; it just means asking your customers to write your specs for you is broken.
    - mbell 14y ago
      > My experience has been completely different, and I'm curious as to why that is. The majority of people who request 'software' haven't a clue what they want, they can't possibly describe it, you can't possibly write a spec for it. See years of research regarding waterfall vs agile development as a reference.
      - JabavuAdams 14y ago
        Interestingly, the waterfall model, as described by its inventor was iterative. See _Leprechauns of Software Development_
      - pionar 14y ago
        Seriously? Business software isn't about "what they want", it's about coming up with a solution to meet a business need. If the customer can't define what their business need is (the why of specs), then they have no reason to be in business. It's not the job of the spec writer to define the business need, it's to take an existing need (after clearly defining it through consultation with the customer) and then defining the parameters of the software - inputs, outputs, business rules. And it has absolutely nothing to do with agile vs. waterfall development. A well-written spec is crucial to ANY business software project. We do agile development at my company (a 25 year old enterprise software company) and will not begin work until we have a well-defined spec. I continually reject spec docs if they don't have enough info or if I have questions about an aspect of it. It's your job as a developer to help the spec writer see what problems may crop up and define a solution for them. I think you need to read Code Complete. It's absolutely mind-blowing the respect for specs you get after reading that book, even just chapter 3.
mbell 14y ago
I find it interesting that I've gotten downvoted for this comment. Building an MVP and then iterating seems to be the modus operandi of the HN community. Building a detailed spec is the anti-thesis of this movement. How does this correlate?
- blago 14y ago
  The world of software development is a lot bigger than HN.
- munger 14y ago
  I didn't down vote you, but my experience with writing specs has been positive. Maybe you are talking about running your own start-up where it might not be successful yet? And you're trying to find your market fit? Then sure, maybe just writing new code and changing the product on a whim is what is best without writing up a spec. Now consider a software consultancy with enterprise customers. The enterprise usually wants time and cost estimates, which usually means agreeing on precisely what you will be delivering in advance. You WANT to write a spec, to prevent scope creep and limit your liability, and they want you to tell them how long and how much (and a spec helps estimate those things). It's win-win. Most enterprise customers can't wrap their CFO's head around true agile with iterations and open-ended times and costs. They want as much of a guarantee as you can give them for what/how long/how much. Not saying one way is better or worse - but maybe it's a case of the right tool for the job?
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  Because the fact one model is working for the HN community doesn't mean that other models don't work but you made a very definite and sweeping statement. We use specs because our customers tend to be somewhat staid and want certainty and predictability. By keeping chunks of functionality relatively compact (say 3 person months typically, then developed over a period of maybe 6 weeks) writing an accurate and useful spec is absolutely doable. Doing that we'll usually be 95% (or more) right and any adjustments can be made in a small release a couple of weeks later. The approach has elements of agile and iteration in it (small releases, the UAT and fix process is basically a short agile sprint) but specs are absolutely a working part of it. Could we do it another way if our clients would accept it? Sure? But do the specs work in the current process? Yes they do.

by mbell 14y ago

LnxPrgr3 14y ago

By the time someone writes the software, the business need has already changed. Software doesn't work. What? Since when did specs become immutable? Needs have changed? Patch the spec. It's faster than patching the software. From http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000036.html http://joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000036.html: "The most important function of a spec is to design the program. Even if you are working on code all by yourself, and you write a spec solely for your own benefit, the act of writing the spec -- describing how the program works in minute detail -- will force you to actually design the program." Sure, you'll still find out the design was wrong in some areas, and you'll have to change it. But at least you'll have a design to start from, as opposed to a hodgepodge of features carelessly tossed into the interface wherever the programmers found it most convenient to stick them, implemented in whatever way made the most sense to the programmers at the time.

mbell 14y ago
> Since when did specs become immutable? Needs have changed? Patch the spec. It's faster than patching the software. I don't understand how this can be faster. You patch the spec, then patch the software to match. I can't see how the spec could be patched faster. That is unless you patch the spec in isolation, prior to writing any code, which is a bigger mess. I've never, ever seen any group that can write a spec in isolation prior to writing code to demonstrate it, and have it come out well, its usually a disaster.
- LnxPrgr3 14y ago
  Did you read the link I posted? The idea is by having a spec, you're more likely to see where it needs to be patched upfront, before delivering poorly designed software to angry customers, so you spend less time re-working it later on. > I've never, ever seen any group that can write a spec in isolation prior to writing code to demonstrate it, and have it come out well, its usually a disaster. Can you elaborate? I'd be interested in hearing what they were building, who (in general terms) they were building it for, how they went about writing the specs, and what went wrong. My experience has been completely different, and I'm curious as to why that is. Edit: Of course you can't expect the customer to write the spec. Designing the software is your job. But that doesn't mean specs are broken; it just means asking your customers to write your specs for you is broken.
  - mbell 14y ago
    > My experience has been completely different, and I'm curious as to why that is. The majority of people who request 'software' haven't a clue what they want, they can't possibly describe it, you can't possibly write a spec for it. See years of research regarding waterfall vs agile development as a reference.
    - JabavuAdams 14y ago
      Interestingly, the waterfall model, as described by its inventor was iterative. See _Leprechauns of Software Development_
    - pionar 14y ago
      Seriously? Business software isn't about "what they want", it's about coming up with a solution to meet a business need. If the customer can't define what their business need is (the why of specs), then they have no reason to be in business. It's not the job of the spec writer to define the business need, it's to take an existing need (after clearly defining it through consultation with the customer) and then defining the parameters of the software - inputs, outputs, business rules. And it has absolutely nothing to do with agile vs. waterfall development. A well-written spec is crucial to ANY business software project. We do agile development at my company (a 25 year old enterprise software company) and will not begin work until we have a well-defined spec. I continually reject spec docs if they don't have enough info or if I have questions about an aspect of it. It's your job as a developer to help the spec writer see what problems may crop up and define a solution for them. I think you need to read Code Complete. It's absolutely mind-blowing the respect for specs you get after reading that book, even just chapter 3.

mbell 14y ago

I find it interesting that I've gotten downvoted for this comment. Building an MVP and then iterating seems to be the modus operandi of the HN community. Building a detailed spec is the anti-thesis of this movement. How does this correlate?

blago 14y ago
The world of software development is a lot bigger than HN.
munger 14y ago
I didn't down vote you, but my experience with writing specs has been positive. Maybe you are talking about running your own start-up where it might not be successful yet? And you're trying to find your market fit? Then sure, maybe just writing new code and changing the product on a whim is what is best without writing up a spec. Now consider a software consultancy with enterprise customers. The enterprise usually wants time and cost estimates, which usually means agreeing on precisely what you will be delivering in advance. You WANT to write a spec, to prevent scope creep and limit your liability, and they want you to tell them how long and how much (and a spec helps estimate those things). It's win-win. Most enterprise customers can't wrap their CFO's head around true agile with iterations and open-ended times and costs. They want as much of a guarantee as you can give them for what/how long/how much. Not saying one way is better or worse - but maybe it's a case of the right tool for the job?
Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
Because the fact one model is working for the HN community doesn't mean that other models don't work but you made a very definite and sweeping statement. We use specs because our customers tend to be somewhat staid and want certainty and predictability. By keeping chunks of functionality relatively compact (say 3 person months typically, then developed over a period of maybe 6 weeks) writing an accurate and useful spec is absolutely doable. Doing that we'll usually be 95% (or more) right and any adjustments can be made in a small release a couple of weeks later. The approach has elements of agile and iteration in it (small releases, the UAT and fix process is basically a short agile sprint) but specs are absolutely a working part of it. Could we do it another way if our clients would accept it? Sure? But do the specs work in the current process? Yes they do.