Re: constraints use case

On 3/27/14 6:47 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Earlier today, I enjoyed Cullen's use of the slippery slope fallacy in
> response to the request that a use case be produced to support the
> current constraints expressiveness.
>
> Can anyone produce one?  We're not going to build a castle on this
> foundation, but it might be interesting to know just how high we need
> to pile our stones.  One probably isn't enough, but I can't recall
> anything.
>
> A mailing list URL would suffice.

+1. It seems near impossible to argue for less the way things are 
structured.

Having upfront use-cases and implementing only what's minimally required 
to meet those use-cases - and not a line of code more - is the only 
antidote to this.

Scope-creep should require new use-cases in the form of proposals.

We don't seem to be doing that. Instead we have "several people wanted 
it and no one didn't want it", so it's in, and there's no metric for 
arguing it back out.

.: Jan-Ivar :.

Received on Friday, 28 March 2014 01:48:19 UTC