Concept, implementation, and communication

Recently, I have been in charge of the skill System in the company for a long time. I was the first to consider it in the glory of, because I had to think too much at that time, it was killed by lan's big finger. However, after that, I did not stop thinking, played some games, considered some situations, and formed the current solution based on the current project situation.

In terms of design, there must be something wrong with it. Otherwise, I may drive a flying car to build a rocket. I don't want to talk about specific design issues here, but I want to talk about some derivative problems.

When deploying and implementing a module, there will inevitably be many people involved. Among them, communication is very important, but it also focuses on technical work. We must acknowledge that, you still have a long way to go.

The purpose of communication is not only to convey your own meaning to others, but also to learn the meaning of others accurately from others, it is to ensure that all participants have the same understanding of the same problem, and the equivalent value is not acceptable.

Due to the tight schedule and a special desire to do something, I held two small meetings and communicated several times with the participating colleagues, I learned some of their ideas from them, modified some designs based on these ideas, and informed every colleague of their ideas. However, the last bit has a cup.

Abstract concepts are ultimately embodied inCodeAnother process is similar to the pseudo-code process. This process should be regarded as a detailed design, right? At this stage, I ignored it.

I just put down the concept and briefly talked about the implemented modules and interfaces. However, I did not know how a method should be embodied as a specific class and method in code, I didn't figure out whether the ideas of several colleagues were different or not, so I rushed to increase the workload. The result is that the modules implemented by the two people are correct from the perspective of their understanding, but they cannot be used together ...... A colleague tried to understand from the perspective of a, constructed his entire interface set, and constructed the processing method of the other party. Another colleague also completed the process, it's just from B's perspective, so it's ......

This is indeed your problem. Pay attention to this in the future.

Fortunately, it's not that big module. It's a waste of a day and it's just getting back on track.

When it comes to detailed design, we sometimes think about it. "Deadline" recommends "last-minute encoding", which means that the process needs to be expanded and improved. But this is a habit of using debug and visibility to describe the software in China.ProgramStaff, too far away. The education we have received and the tradition we have been maintaining are light-designed, re-coded, and re-debugged. Rapid deployment is always more important than storm design. However, the enhanced design is worth a try. To what extent? The deadline provides several criteria, one of which is the concept that the interface between modules should be designed, rather than the need to reproduce. The concept of demand is a process of induction. People with normal logic only need to raise the demand set to obtain the equivalent concept. However, as a deduction of concepts, the variability of interfaces all go up. Therefore, it should be treated with emphasis.

Now, you can no longer design, implement, discover problems, and modify yourself, because first, the workload caused by design changes is not just your own, others.

Therefore, we need to be more careful, arrange interfaces and processes, and leave enough flexibility.

Hope you can grow up as soon as possible.