Re: constraints use case

On 27/03/2014 9:47 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> 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 :

I agree.

Gili

Received on Friday, 28 March 2014 05:24:04 UTC