[Hauthorn]

I think you work in different domains.

Expecting a good outcome is different from expecting to get exactly what you intended.

Formal specifications are useful in some lines of work and for some projects, less so for others.

Wicked problems would be one example where formal specs are impossible by definition.

[johnnyanmac]

>Anyway, the disabled are pretty much always allowed to be collateral damage by society, so this will just be senseless pain.

For games, you don't really need nor desire formal specs. But it also can really show how sometimes a director has a low tolerance for interpretation despite their communication being very loose. This leads to situations where it feels like the director is shifting designs on a dome, which is a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.

If nothing else, formal specification is for CYA. You get what you ask for, and any deviation should go in the next task order or have been addressed beforehand.

[throwaway290]

> For games, you don't really need nor desire formal specs.

Whoah is this wrong. Maybe when you hear "formal specs" you have something specific in your mind...

Formal spec can mean almost literally anything better than natural language vibes in a "few words about a desire", which is what I replied to because I was triggered by it

[throwaway290]

> Formal specifications are useful in some lines of work and for some projects, less so for others

There is always formal specification. Code is final formal specification in the end. But converting vague vibes from natural language into a somewhat formalized description is key ability you need for any really new non trivial project idea. Another human can't do it for you, conversational UI can't do it for you...