|
|
|
|
|
|
by jacobmoe
1868 days ago
|
|
|
> all the useful artifacts from it happened naturally because product and dev were so closely aligned. Aren't you just saying that DDD wasn't proposed as a solution to the problem because the problem didn't exist? Starting to jog is a smell that you're out of shape, if you were in shape you wouldn't need to start jogging. One of the ideas that DDD pushes is that product and dev should be closely aligned. The reason that's emphasized is that it isn't the case in a lot of organizations. Of course you could try to avoid all orgs with these kinds of problems (I haven't been able to, unfortunately), but the question is, if encountering an org that _does_ have problems, what solution would you propose? |
|
|
I even call that out in the post you're responding to - "Every place I've encountered it, it was attempting to fix with process something that needed to be fixed with culture." And then expound how places with the right culture didn't see value in DDD, and places with poor culture tried to band-aid over it with DDD. As I comment elsewhere, that's not an indictment of DDD as a practice, just that when orgs seek to adopt it it's indicative of a problem, one that DDD won't fix.
>>> Starting to jog is a smell that you're out of shape, if you were in shape you wouldn't need to start jogging.
Let me rephrase that, since it's not 'starting to jog', but 'jogging'. Trying DDD (because of purported benefits) is different than continuing to use DDD (because of actualized benefits).
So "jogging is a smell that you're out of shape; if you're in shape you won't be jogging". And that's patently false.
What I think you're trying to say is that jogging will help keep in shape people in shape, and will help out of shape people get into shape as well, yes? Which would equate to "DDD can help effective software orgs stay effective, and ineffective software orgs become effective". Which is a reasonable claim, but one I've simply not seen; I've not encountered an effective software org that used it, and all the ones I've encountered that used it were ineffective, and, at least during my tenure there, remained so.
>>> One of the ideas that DDD pushes is that product and dev should be closely aligned.
It may try to push that idea, but it does nothing to help it occur. It's implicit, but no more than anything else software related (in that to build something the builders have to know what to build). Certainly, if you asked anyone, using any process, whether or not it's a good idea to have product and dev -unaligned-, they would say "of course not! As a practitioner of X I certainly believe they should be aligned".