spec versus spec

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

so, you’re writing a “spec”, are you? congratulations!

do you have running code that does what you want, and which is — as far as you’re able to tell — bug free?

excellent! then your “spec” is actually a _specification_, which describes, exactly, in detail, what the code is doing.

and the running code is a “reference implementation” which programmers can use as the “building-block” to incorporate your spec in the apps they code. this assures the consistent and uniform treatment which end-users rightfully expect from a “standard”.

furthermore, your specification can then be edited into normal-person-language to be a “user manual”.


no running code?

oh, well… gee, then you have a problem, don’t you?

because that means your “spec” is just _“speculation”._

you don’t know if you’ve considered all the factors that might impact the success of your speculation.

you can solve your problem by writing code that will do exactly what your “spec” says, and debugging it…

when your debugging is finished, your “speculation” turns into a “specification”, and you can take a nap.


what’s that? you say that you cannot write code?

i see. so your “speculation” is just _“wishful thinking”._

indeed, you don’t even know what factors you need to consider, let alone that you considered all of ’em. and you certainly don’t fully comprehend the hard, cold, logic that is required when coding a program.

but… cheer up. wishful thinking can still be useful.

who knows, some programmer might come across your wishful-thinking “speculation” and decide that it’s an itch s/he wishes to scratch, and go to work…

until that happens, why don’t you just go take a nap?


One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.