> It feels like software developers are scientists who study their customers' knowledge domains.
I agree so much with this. It's why I feel so stifled when an e.g. product manager tries to insulate and isolate me from the people who I'm trying to serve -- you (or a collective of yous) need to have access to both expertise in the domain you're serving, and expertise in the method of service, in order to develop an appropriate and satisfactory solution. Unnecessary games of telephone make it much harder for anyone to build an internal theory of the domain, which is absolutely essential for applying your engineering skills appropriately.
Another facet of this is my annoyance at other developers when they persistently incurious about the domain. (Thankfully, this has not been too common.)
I don't just mean when there are tight deadlines, or there's a customer-from-heck who insists they always know best, but as their default mode of operation. I imagine it's like a gardener who cares only about the catalogue of tools, and just wants the bare-minimum knowledge to deal with any particular set of green thingies in the dirt.
This is why at my current place we are not supposed to do any dev without an SME on the call. We do the development and share the screen and get immediate feedback as we are working in real time! It's great.
This might be an indicator that PM isn't doing their job; PM should be able to answer you questions regarding what the business wants (= people who you're trying to serve). Developers, by the nature of interacting with domain, do become experts in the domain, but really it should be up to PM what the domain should be doing business-wise.
If that is what a PM needs then there aren't enough good PM to warrant a PM role for most products, so just make software engineers do that in most cases.
Edit: The main role of PM is to decide which features to build, not how those features should be built or how they should work. Someone has to decide what to build, that is the PM, but most PM are not very good at figuring out the best way for those features to work so its better if the programmers can talk to users directly there. Of course a PM could do that work if they are skilled at it, but most PM wont be.
So that we're on the same page, what I think should be PM responsibilities:
If I have a user story: "As a customer I want to purchase a product so that I can receive it at my address" - PM defines this user story as they have insight to decide if such feature is needed.
PM should then define acceptance criteria: "Given customer is logged in When they view Product page Then 'Add product to basket' button should appear", "Given 'Add product to basket' button When customers click on it Then Product information modal should appear" etc - PM should know what users actually want, ie whether modals should appears, or not; whether this feature should be available for logged users only, or not.
How this will work shouldn't matter to PM; these are AC they've defined.
Of course the process of defining AC should involve developers (and QA), because AC should be exhaustive to delivering given feature
The problem, in my experience, is that most PMs don't add anything when it comes to drawing up the acceptance criteria.
In your example of an order placement - the PM has no special knowledge of what is a good customer order flow. Developers are usually way better at coming up with those by the dint of experience and technical knowledge of the current codebase and make the appropriate speed/polish trade-off.
PMs acts as an imperfect proxy for what the customer wants, making judgements off nothing more than their own taste. And though there are many great PMs, the taste of a PM is usually worse than that of developers and designers on average.
IMO the main business reason they exist is for organization accountability and ownership, despite the often negative value they bring.
> I've recently been curious about the abstract machines implied by this process for other kinds of programs.
Olivier Danvy's "Rational Reconstruction of the SECD Machine" [0] explores the idea of this transformation as well, but frames it as a relationship between operational and denotational semantics:
> This deconstruction–reconstruction is actually interesting in itself because it provides a bridge between small-step operational semantics (in the form of an abstract machine) and denotational semantics (in the form of a compositional evaluation function)
His work on (de/re)functionalization is super interesting.
An eDSL is an (e)mbedded (D)omain-(S)pecific (L)anguage. In other words, it's a language for describing domain-specific entities and operations, that happens to be embedded into an existing (host) language rather than being given its own standalone parser, interpreter, compiler, etc. An eDSL gets to piggy-back off of the syntax and semantics of the host language, but extends it with domain-specific concepts in (hopefully) a way that integrates well with the host language.
Lots of things that are "just" libraries could also reasonably be thought of as eDSLs.
Yes, this is missing the "pressure" part of "backpressure", where the recipient is able to signal to the producer that they should slow down or stop producing messages. Observability is useful, sure, but it's not the same as backpressure.
Sending message to a process has a cost (for purposes of preemption) relative to the current size of receiver's mailbox, so the sender will get preempted earlier. This isn't perfect, but it is something.
HTML is actually a dialect of SGML. XHTML was an attempt to move to an XML-based foundation, but XML's strictness in parsing worked against it, and eventually folks just standardized how HTML parsers should interpret ill-formed HTML instead.
Ah good to know. It’s interesting (to me) how similar they look to each other but you and other commentators below mention how they’re more like distant cousins
They're so good I don't feel it much either :) They're all SSL, but streamers and pros are seeing it big time. And just as it was regaining popularity. They're adding EAC soon, claiming it will help. It won't, not even a little.
> room designated was meadows and you could find herbs which would replenish over time
I'm sure several MUDs did this, but, this sounds an awful lot like my home MUD of Achaea, which started in ~1997, still exists (healthily!), and has this exact system :)
I agree in principle, but actually, according to the netcat website [0]:
> If netcat is compiled with -DTELNET, the -t argument enables it to respond to telnet option negotiation [always in the negative, i.e. DONT or WONT]. This allows it to connect to a telnetd and get past the initial negotiation far enough to get a login prompt from the server. Since this feature has the potential to modify the data stream, it is not enabled by default. You have to understand why you might need this and turn on the #define yourself.
So it supports enough to tell others that it doesn't support it. That's more than I expected, but still don't serves me when I actually want to use telnet.
I agree so much with this. It's why I feel so stifled when an e.g. product manager tries to insulate and isolate me from the people who I'm trying to serve -- you (or a collective of yous) need to have access to both expertise in the domain you're serving, and expertise in the method of service, in order to develop an appropriate and satisfactory solution. Unnecessary games of telephone make it much harder for anyone to build an internal theory of the domain, which is absolutely essential for applying your engineering skills appropriately.
reply