> Your whole case rests on the insistence that OP's core requirement is no good
I never said it wasn't good.
I just said it led to over-engineering a doorbell.
"Good" or "bad" are words you're putting in my mouth.
> Your whole case rests on the insistence that OP's core requirement is no good
I never said it wasn't good.
I just said it led to over-engineering a doorbell.
"Good" or "bad" are words you're putting in my mouth.
Now you're trying to weasel out of this (whstl out?).
I was trying to be diplomatic and use "good/bad" as shorthand for "should be part of a well engineered (not over/under) product or not". You don't like it, then let me use what you actually said: engineers who implement all the requirements given to them are like the Nazi soldiers who executed the people they were ordered to execute. Neither good nor bad, just over executing, right?
I asked you a question because it was an easy way to apply your logic on something concrete, so you can see that if it fails on something so simple, maybe it's not actually useful at all. You pretended not to see it like a fine engineer with responsibilities. Tripped on a Christmas light.
I am also trying to be diplomatic and I would like for a more charitable interpretation of my messages.
My whole point is that "something being in the requirements" is not a shield against something being considered "over engineering" by others. There's nothing more to it.