OT: Re: GDB/XMI (XML Machine Interface)

[Chris Friesen <gdb001 at speakeasy dot net>]

On Aug 11, 2004, at 3:43 PM, Felix Lee wrote:

> Chris Friesen <gdb001@speakeasy.net>:
> > The code is an implementation that doesn't convey the objectives or
> > intent. Is that behavior a bug or feature in the code?
>
> if a programmer isn't going to explain it in the code, why expect
> them to explain it in a spec?  having a separate spec is like
> removing comments from the source and putting them in a different

In many cases the code comments are not the equivalent of a plan or 
design. If they are, then that's great. It's not a specification 
because of where it lives, it is a specification by what it tells you 
of the design and objectives. A programming language doesn't do well 
communicating a guiding design. English isn't suited for programming a 
computer. Thus 'the code is not the spec'. When compilers operate on 
comments, I'll start calling comments code.

Most people don't draw up architectural blueprints to build a dog 
house, they might use a pencil sketch. You could build a house without 
blueprints, but would you build a sky-scraper without them? Your 
specification should fit the project at hand, be it code comments, XMI 
specification proposal, sketches or blueprints.

A specification is as much a design process as it is a document, a tool 
that you size and use to fit your needs.

Cheers,
- Chris