3 ms·

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

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.
enjo 14y ago
Big design up front! In my experience you never really understand a problem until you've implemented it. You can describe a problem and a solution in excruciating detail, but you'll never find every corner case. Sometimes (often?) those corner cases are really big deals. Better to prototype and iterate. Software should be the spec.
- LnxPrgr3 14y ago
  > Better to prototype and iterate. Agreed. Version 1.0 is a glorified prototype anyway. Nothing about writing a spec prevents you from prototyping and iterating, though. These are not competing ideas. Of course you won't get everything right in the first draft of the spec. You won't get everything right in the first release of your software either. That's not an excuse to stop trying. Let's suppose you write a spec, then go on to write some code. For each design problem that makes you break from your original plans, one of two things is true: (1) Someone noticed a problem while writing or reviewing the spec, and changed the design. You've saved a ton of time over implementing the wrong thing and then changing it later. (2) You didn't notice the problem until implementation. It still takes just as long to fix as it would have if you hadn't bothered writing a spec first. If #1 is common enough, writing the spec saves you time. At worst, #1 never happens and you're out the time it took to write the spec. But how long does that take? In my experience, it takes a lot less time to write a spec than to actually implement it. There's a lot of potential upside and little potential downside. I don't advocate Epic Design Up Front—at some point, it's time to stop planning and start doing. But I do advocate Some Design Up Front, as opposed to Let's Wing It And Hope For The Best. > Software should be the spec. Software is not a spec. It's written in computerspeak so only the programmers can read it, and sometimes they're not even completely sure what's going on. Without a spec, QA has nothing to test against, so you get into arguments about how things should work because there's no record of any decision on the matter. There's nothing to write documentation against, so the documentation ends up worthless. Sales and marketing make up all sorts of neat features you get to implement whether they make sense or not because they've already been sold, and you can't really say they should've known better because you never bothered to write down what they should know in the first place. If all you have is code, you don't have a spec. Code is not a spec.

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.

enjo 14y ago

Big design up front! In my experience you never really understand a problem until you've implemented it. You can describe a problem and a solution in excruciating detail, but you'll never find every corner case. Sometimes (often?) those corner cases are really big deals. Better to prototype and iterate. Software should be the spec.

LnxPrgr3 14y ago
> Better to prototype and iterate. Agreed. Version 1.0 is a glorified prototype anyway. Nothing about writing a spec prevents you from prototyping and iterating, though. These are not competing ideas. Of course you won't get everything right in the first draft of the spec. You won't get everything right in the first release of your software either. That's not an excuse to stop trying. Let's suppose you write a spec, then go on to write some code. For each design problem that makes you break from your original plans, one of two things is true: (1) Someone noticed a problem while writing or reviewing the spec, and changed the design. You've saved a ton of time over implementing the wrong thing and then changing it later. (2) You didn't notice the problem until implementation. It still takes just as long to fix as it would have if you hadn't bothered writing a spec first. If #1 is common enough, writing the spec saves you time. At worst, #1 never happens and you're out the time it took to write the spec. But how long does that take? In my experience, it takes a lot less time to write a spec than to actually implement it. There's a lot of potential upside and little potential downside. I don't advocate Epic Design Up Front—at some point, it's time to stop planning and start doing. But I do advocate Some Design Up Front, as opposed to Let's Wing It And Hope For The Best. > Software should be the spec. Software is not a spec. It's written in computerspeak so only the programmers can read it, and sometimes they're not even completely sure what's going on. Without a spec, QA has nothing to test against, so you get into arguments about how things should work because there's no record of any decision on the matter. There's nothing to write documentation against, so the documentation ends up worthless. Sales and marketing make up all sorts of neat features you get to implement whether they make sense or not because they've already been sold, and you can't really say they should've known better because you never bothered to write down what they should know in the first place. If all you have is code, you don't have a spec. Code is not a spec.