[MUD-Dev] Re: Analysis and specification - the dirty words of mud development?

[Richard Woolcock]

Greg Munt wrote:
> 

[snip]

> Many (I'd say 'all', but I can't allow myself to be that pessimistic) mud
> developers that I know are not that at all, but, instead, are mud
> implementors. Design is little more than an afterthought, so hopes of any
> analysis being done are comedic, at best.
> 
> As a firm believer in the neccessity for QA procedures in *any* software
> development, I am keen to discuss these previously untouched areas of
> requirements analysis. My early forays into them are self-condemned as too
> low-level, and having no commercial experience, I'd be interested in how
> others have progressed with it (particularly on commercial projects).
> 
> My requirements thus far seem to be based around the tools which users will
> use to satisfy their requirements, rather than specifying the requirements
> themselves. The fact that there is no physical 'customer' is not helpful,
> either.

The importance of specifications and analysis lies in being able to turn 
around to the customer and say "well, you didn't ask for *that*... but for
extra $$$ and a deadline slip we could do it for you".  Believe me - some
companies depend on this happening to be able to get their software completed
within what are - initially - impossible deadlines.

As far as a mud goes... The implementor/coder decides what s/he wants in the
mud and work to that.  They don't have to explain to other people exactly
what the mud is going to be like, because they are the company AND the
customer all rolled into one.

IMO a far more important phase in mud development is the scrutiny/testing 
phase, which is also very much lacking.  Why?  Because its boring as hell
and no fun to do, and if its no fun the mud stops becoming a hobby.

KaVir.