[lug] can't make this stuff up, folks...

[Bear Giles]

Going back slightly...

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Carl Wagner <carl.wagner at verbalworld.com>wrote:

> I would love to see a bridge built with the same sort of requirements
> that software engineers get:
>   1)  It must look pretty.
>   2)  It needs to be done in two weeks.
>   3)  Your budget is $10K.
>

You forgot 0).  The bridge must go from somewhere to somewhere else (but we
aren't sure where yet, just that you'll get it wrong) and we can't tell you
if it's a pedestrian bridge or it needs to carry tanks but we don't want you
wasting our time and money by overbuilding it.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who has tried to apply SE techniques and
been frustrated by the inability of anyone to specify what they want in an
SE-meaningful manner.  You can't hit a target if you don't know where it is,
at least not with better reliability than raw chance.  NASA (and avionics in
general) is an exception since the requirements are extremely well-defined.
Ditto medical devices.

That's why iterative processes have become so popular.  The inefficiencies
are more than offset by the ability to focus on the things that really
matter to the client/customer/boss.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20091019/26cfa483/attachment.html>