←back to thread

279 points nnx | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
PeterStuer ◴[] No.43543777[source]
Here's where the article goes wrong:

1. "Natural language is a data transfer mechanism"

2. "Data transfer mechanisms have two critical factors: speed and lossiness"

3. "Natural language has neither"

While a conversational interface does transfer information, its main qualities are what I always refer to as "blissfull ignorance" and "intelligent interpretation".

Blisfull ignorance allows the requester to state an objective while not being required to know or even be right in how to achieve it. It is the opposite of operational command. Do as I mean, not as I say.

"Intelligent Interpretation" allows the receiver the freedom to infer an intention in the communication rather than a command. It also allows for contextual interactions such as goal oriented partial clarification and elaboration.

The more capable of intelligent interpretation the request execution system is, the more appropriate a conversational interface will be.

Think of it as managing a team. If they are junior, inexperienced and not very bright, you will probably tend towards handholding, microtasking and micromanagement to get things done. If you have a team of senior, experienced and bright engineers, you can with a few words point out a desire and, trust them to ask for information when there is relevant ambiguity, and expect a good outcome without having to detail manage every minute of their days.

replies(2): >>43543792 #>>43543949 #
throwaway290 ◴[] No.43543949[source]
> If you have a team of senior, experienced and bright engineers, you can with a few words point out a desire and, trust them to ask for information when there is relevant ambiguity, and expect a good outcome

It's such a fallacy. First thing an experienced and bright engineer will tell you is to leave the premises with your "few words about a desire" and not return without actual specs and requirements formalized in some way. If you do not understand what you want yourself, it means hours/days/weeks/months/literally years of back and forths and broken solutions and wasted time, because natural language is slow and lossy af (the article hits the nail on the head on this one).

Re "ask for information", my favorite example is when you say one thing if I ask you today and then you reply something else (maybe the opposite, it happened) if I ask you a week later because you forgot or just changed your mind. I bet a conversational interface will deal with this just fine /s

replies(3): >>43544573 #>>43544963 #>>43546171 #
1. lolinder ◴[] No.43546171[source]
> First thing an experienced and bright engineer will tell you is to leave the premises with your "few words about a desire" and not return without actual specs and requirements formalized in some way.

No, that's what a junior engineer will do. The first thing that an experienced and bright senior engineer will do is think over the request and ask clarifying questions in pursuit of a more rigorous specification, then repeat back their understanding of the problem and their plan. If they're very bright they'll get the plan down in writing so we stay on the same page.

The primary job of a senior engineer is not to turn formal specifications into code, it's to turn vague business requests into formal specifications. They're senior enough to recognize that that's the actually difficult part of the work, the thing that keeps them employed.

replies(2): >>43546310 #>>43546909 #
2. throwaway290 ◴[] No.43546310[source]
I used to think like you. My job is to ask questions etc. But after a couple decades I see if someone doesn't bother to even think about the idea enough to understand it himself beyond a few words he is not worth engaging with in this fashion. He doesn't really know what he wants. Today I ask a clarifying question he says one thing, next week he changes his mind or forgets and the result slowly becomes a mess

> The primary job of a senior engineer is not to turn formal specifications into code, it's to turn vague business requests into formal specifications.

Converting vibes and external world into specific requirements is product owner job.

Do not mistake software engineers and product people. These are very different things. Sometimes these things are done by the same person if the org has not enough money. Many freelancers working with small biz do both. I often do both at my day job. But this is a higher level role and if you are a senior engineer doing product stuff I hope it is recognized and you get proportionate comp.

replies(2): >>43549375 #>>43550117 #
3. indoordin0saur ◴[] No.43546909[source]
You're entirely right. The person you're responding to doesn't sound like a senior engineer so much as a grouchy old engineer who is burned out. Of course, you can get bad clients but expecting them to know exactly what specs they want every time is unreasonable in most situations, particularly if they don't have the technical knowledge of the systems you work in.
replies(1): >>43555510 #
4. lolinder ◴[] No.43549375[source]
You and I are either talking about very different kinds of specifications or very different kinds of product people. The product people I'm familiar with are completely incapable of creating a specification that is sufficiently detailed to implement without a lot of back and forth. Not because they're not good at what they do, but because what they do does not include defining requirements in sufficient fidelity for an engineer to act on.
replies(1): >>43555517 #
5. ryandrake ◴[] No.43550117[source]
> Do not mistake software engineers and product people. These are very different things. Sometimes these things are done by the same person if the org has not enough money.

I worked for one of the largest, richest tech companies in the world, and (at least in our org) they did not have a dedicated product owner role. They expected this skill from the senior/lead engineers on the teams. Any coder can churn out code and you can call them senior after a few years. But if you want to be considered actually senior, you need to know how to make a product, not just code. IMO if you are a developer and all you know how to do is turn a fully-formed spec/requirements doc into software, and push back on anything that is not fully-formed, you're never going to truly reach "Senior" level, wherever you are.

replies(1): >>43555514 #
6. throwaway290 ◴[] No.43555510[source]
You are either immature as a software engineer and unfamiliar with how software work is done conceptually, or you are jaded and disgruntled from dysfunctional orgs that cannot come up with requirements. That is okay, but you should not try to be instructive to others on this matter.

I love product work and programming. As I wrote in this thread, I did it while freelancing, I do it now at dayjob. I am bored by just programming and want more control over the result. People come to me with "a few words about a desire" and I do come up with specifics and I get credit for it

But I am recognized as a product person, not just programmer. And I know better to not make the mistake you make and pretend that every builder or a structural engineer should be an architect of a building or an urban planner.

People like you is why we have managers come to an expert level say C++ dev with "a few words about a desire" and expect them to decide what thing to build in the first place AND to build it, just to later tell them it was wrong. When there is no product person who determines the reqs random people will make programmer come up with requirements yourself and then later tell you it is not up to "requirements".

This lack of organization and requirement clarity is offensive to expert programmers and probably the reason most projects drag on forever and die.

7. throwaway290 ◴[] No.43555514{3}[source]
Money is not a cure for organizational dysfunction.

But as I said these roles can be done by one person, just remember they are different activities.

8. throwaway290 ◴[] No.43555517{3}[source]
You should get to know better product people and if you successfully built a project as an engineer without a product person then hey you were one yourself