Two strictly random thoughts on two aspects of software development - Requirements and Design follow. Just something to play with over the weekend -
1/ Systematic and scientific approach to software development instead of intuitive, programmer driven.
An intuitive, programmer-driven approach is a typical one taken up by programmers, that is heavily based on experience in solving similar natured problems and also on observations of other programmers' practices. Programmers are very trained to follow patterns of solutions. Most of the time, it goes OK, since the thought process has been reviewed by several programmers and has a proven workability. However, what if a fresh look is taken in some situations where the chosen solution is only based on tried and tested formulas ? How about deriving a solution based on a totally rational, logical and scientific approach ? Can it find some gaps in understanding, find some other, hitherto overlooked determining factors ? Most research in academia takes this approach and does succeed in finding better solutions than those in the industry. The industry is sometimes too focused on finding cost-effective, workable and time-bound solutions, to the detriment of doing something that will prove to be profitable and efficient for the long term. The hard, complex problems in software suffer in this regard much more than the run-of-the-mill kind of software, such as the CRUDs.
As a sunshine industry, software is still evolving, with new practices being thought of and proposed at regular intervals. It should be a place full of such opportunities for betterment.
2/ Allowing maximum configurability but not exposing it to users.
Customers use software built be developers but they usually end up complaining more often about features not implemented according to what they wanted and less often about things that don't seem to work correctly as per specifications. If something does not work correctly as per specifications, its a clear bug and the developers feel obliged to make the corrections. However, the point about missed specifications, misunderstood specifications and conventions is not so easy to rectify.
Can a solution be to allow for configuring everything and anything that is feasible ? Users will be quick to complain about huge configuration choices and complicated installation tasks. So the configuration out-of-the-box is chosen to be a vanilla, typically acceptable one and not exposed to users at all. If some user needs something different that how the software behaves, we will need to customize and configure but we will be very likely to find some way out without making code changes since we just made it as configurable as possible, even when we never expected the users to change it.
When I thought of this, I was really thinking about issues faced with various customers and the varied preferences each one has with respect to the same software. Some customers could complain about software components needing bi-directional access in network ports and interfering with firewalls, others cribbing about GUI of administration consoles and the layouts. Somehow, it is a bad bet for the developer to make a design choice, code something accordingly, and then face urgent situations because of making those choices if some customer expected otherwise. Even if we take care to implement according to some well-known standards and conventions, are we in a position to deny something to a prospective customer (and maintain same specs) if they don't like how it behaves ?