Functional specs subvert the hierarchy of nature Matt 45 comments Latest by daan

The other week I got some interesting perspective on the Functional Spec debate from an unlikely source: a comparison of code law and common law.

First, some background: No Functional Spec was the first Getting Real piece of advice ever written here. It’s also the subject of an essay in our new book and Jason addressed it during his Q&A session at SXSW (you can hear near the end of this podcast). Still, it’s one of the more controversial aspects of Getting Real. People argue it’s reckless and that functional specs are a necessity.

So what’s code/common law got to do with it? Here’s a very basic explanation of the legalese: Code law is based on a system of codified written laws. The rules are set and that’s that. Common law, on the other hand, is based on a series of ongoing decisions (like the legal system here in the US).

So we’ve got a rigid system that’s set in stone vs. a flexible one that reacts and responds to real-world situations. Sounds familiar, eh?

The bit that got me thinking was a passage in a book by Alan Watts, a philosopher and writer. In it, he tries to explain why common law is superior:

Common law rests ultimately upon the judge’s intuitive feeling for equity. Every case is unique, and no code or set of fixed principle can provide for every eventuality. The deciding factor is therefore something far more subtle and complex than any formulation of rules can be — the judge’s brain, assisted by precedents and rules. Code law, as well as authoritarian and traditionalist ethics, subverts the hierarchy of nature. It gives greater trust and authority to the relatively crude and rigid structure of verbal rules than to the infinitely more fluid and complex structure of the brain, the organism, and the field in which they live.