Discussing conflicts between programmers and customers. A discussion of ambiguous situations between the programmer and the client, and a rating of the most conflicted programmer performers. - page 11

New comment
 

Bormotun:

So it's not so easy with the writing after all.

I assure you, it's even worse with the voice.

the voice can only be trusted with numbers.

But "let me ride my bike and I'll give you an ice cream for it" agreements. Doesn't mean you can eat the ice cream. This is an incomplete TOR and variability :) Skill executor just and requires to see all such places. After all, for myself you have exactly what you will do with a bike, but with ice cream no.

Now imagine a further situation.
The performer says to you "You've written that you will give me an ice cream, but you have not written what I can do with it: just hold it in my hands or sell it.
And here you start to get stuck - "Man, how can I explain to him what he can do and what he can't do". You've never really thought about the phrase "I'll give him an ice cream". You've always taken it in the context of the intonation and the preliminary words spoken.
And you begin to feel that with words on Skype you can convey the meaning of the phrase "ice cream lady" much more accurately than to spend the letters to write an unambiguous and complete interpretation of the word combination.

So this sentiment is a misconception.

 
Bormotun: The point is that the most perfect text can be twisted so badly that even its parent would not recognise it.

It does not need to be twisted anywhere if it is written in plain, dry technical language in which all terms are defined. It is the coder's responsibility to agree the ToR before it can be implemented.

You tell me where and how such words can be twisted:

Вход осуществляется на открытии бара, следующего после бара, на котором машка10 и машка50 пересеклись.

Факт пересечения машек всегда фиксируется только при открытии бара.

Само пересечение считается произошедшим, если машки поменяли взаимное положение (скажем, 10-я стала выше 50-й, а на открытии предыдущего бара была ниже), а расстояние между ними составляет не менее 5 четырехзначных пунктов на текущей паре на Н1.

The main definable term here is "intersection." What's not to understand?
 
Mathemat:

It does not need to be twisted anywhere if it is written in plain, dry technical language in which all terms are defined. It is the responsibility of the coder to agree the ToR before it can be implemented.

Tell me where and how you can twist words like that:

Вход осуществляется на открытии бара, следующего после бара, на котором машка10 и машка50 пересеклись.

Факт пересечения машек всегда фиксируется только при открытии бара.

Само пересечение считается произошедшим, если машки поменяли взаимное положение (скажем, 10-я стала выше 50-й, а на открытии предыдущего бара была ниже), а расстояние между ними составляет не менее 5 четырехзначных пунктов.

The main definable term here is "intersection". What's not to understand here?
Oh it's easy, you know what the programmer told me in response to your dummies? "What mashqs, do you know where mashqs are?", or do you think so? etc.," Of course we didn't say the word mashq, but in general the communication went something like this.
 
Bormotun:
Oh easy, you know what the programmer used to say to your mashkas? "What mashqs, do you know where mashqs are?" Do you have to use normal language, or do you think so hard? etc.," Of course we didn't say the word mashq, but in general the communication went something like this.
That's sad.
 
Bormotun: Oh easy, you know what the programmer used to say to your mash-ups? "Of course we didn't say the word "mashka", but in general the communication went like this.

And did you notice at least one nuance that might arise in these three lines? I left it out on purpose.

In such cases, the customer who thinks in circles and vague images gets the impression that the coder is picking on him in order to up the price. But in fact, this is normal: the coder just wants to do the job as close as possible to how the client describes it. And he has to ask tricky questions, so that he doesn't get displeased afterwards.

 
Mathemat:
And did you notice at least one nuance that might arise in these three lines? I left it out on purpose.
Not ah, but here's a follow up to you, give me an example on prices, five crosses up and five crosses down, and your argument that there can be a cross at any price and the principle is not in the price but in the crossing is not accepted.
 
Bormotun: Not ah, but here's a follow up to you, give me an example on prices, five crossovers up and five down, and your argument that the crossover can be at any price and the principle is not in price, but in the crossover is not accepted.

Sorry, but I don't understand anything in your text.

P.S. The nuance was in the word "down". The coder might well ask: what is "below"? Should the term be interpreted as "lower by at least 5 4-digit points"?

 
Mathemat:

I'm sorry, but I don't understand anything in your text.


Yeah, and I had to understand it.
 
Bormotun:
Oh easy, you know what the programmer used to say to your mashkas? "What mashqs, do you know where mashqs are?" Do you have to use normal language, or do you think so dumb? etc.," Of course we didn't say the word mashq, but in general the communication went something like this.
О! Turns out I'm not the only one. I don't react badly to moshkas, but I can bite you for mooing.
 
Mathemat:

It does not need to be twisted anywhere if it is written in plain, dry technical language in which all terms are defined. It is the responsibility of the coder to agree the ToR before it can be implemented.

Tell me where and how you can twist words like that:

Вход осуществляется на открытии бара, следующего после бара, на котором машка10 и машка50 пересеклись.

Факт пересечения машек всегда фиксируется только при открытии бара.

Само пересечение считается произошедшим, если машки поменяли взаимное положение (скажем, 10-я стала выше 50-й, а на открытии предыдущего бара была ниже), а расстояние между ними составляет не менее 5 четырехзначных пунктов на текущей паре на Н1.

The main definable term here is "intersection". What's unclear here?
It is unambiguously written, but very probably not what is meant by the dream. Rather, the dream here is to achieve a given divergence after crossing, but those so that only the divergence is checked at the crossing bar.
1...456789101112131415161718...40
New comment