| ▲ | ramoz 5 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> If I had to roll out such a development process today, I’d make a standardized Markdown specification the new unit of knowledge for the software project. Product owners and engineers could initially collaborate on this spec and on test cases to enforce business rules. Those should be checked into the project repositories along with the implementing code. There would need to be automated pull-request checks verifying not only that tests pass but that code conforms to the spec. This specification, and not the code that materializes it, is what the team would need to understand, review, and be held accountable for. The constant urge I have today is for some sort of spec or simpler facts to be continuously verified at any point in the development process; Something agents would need to be aware of. I agree with the blog and think it's going to become a team sport to manage these requirements. I'm going to try this out by evolving my open source tool [1] (used to review specs and code) into a bit more of a collaborative & integrated plane for product specs/facts - https://plannotator.ai/workspaces/ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | 20k 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What we really we need is some kind of more detailed spec language that doesn't have edge cases, where we describe exactly what we expect the generated code to do, and then formally verify that the now generated code matches the input spec requirement. It'd be super helpful to have something more formal with no ambiguity, especially because the english language tends to be pretty ambiguous in general which can result in spec problems I also tend to find especially that there's a lot of cruft in human written spec languages - which makes them overly verbose once you really get into the details of how all of this works, so you could chop a lot of that out with a good spec language I nominate that we call this completely novel, evolving discipline: 'programming' | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | giancarlostoro 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I called it gates on mine. I loved Beads but it closed tasks without any validation steps. Beads also had other weird issues, so I made my own alternative. I think "Gates" is also used by others projects that took on the same challenge I did in mine weirdly enough. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | piokoch 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We've been through that so many times. When UML arrived (and ALM tools suites, IBM was trying to sell it, Borland was trying to sell it, all those fancy and expensive StarTeam, Caliber and Together soft), then BPML and its friends arrived, Business Rule Management System (BRMS), Drools in Java world, etc. It all failed. For a simple reason, popularized by Joel Spolsky: if you want to create specification that describes precisely what software is doing and how it is doing its job, then, well, you need to write that damn program using MS Word or Markdown, which is neither practical nor easy. The new buzzword is "spec driven development", maybe it will work this time, but I would not bet on that right now. BTW: when we will be at this point, it does not make sense anymore to generate code in programming languages we have today, LLM can simply generate binaries or at least some AST that will be directly translated to binary. In this way LISP would, eventually, take over the world!. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jondwillis 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I’ve been considering this as well, and trying to get my colleagues to understand and start doing it. I use it to pretty decent effect in my vibe coded slop side projects. In the new world of mostly-AI code that is mostly not going to be properly reviewed or understood by humans, having a more and more robust manifestation and enforcement, and regeneration of the specs via the coding harness configuration combined with good old fashioned deterministic checks is one potential answer. Taken to an extreme, the code doesn’t matter, it’s just another artifact generated by the specs, made manifest through the coding harness configuration and CI. If cost didn’t matter, you could re-generate code from scratch every time the specs/config change, and treat the specs/config as the new thing that you need to understand and maintain. “Clean room code generation-compiler-thing.” | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | KaiShips 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[flagged] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | uptodatenews 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[dead] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||