Meeting the many different communication structures in and across organizations
Sixt y years ago, Melvin E. Conway wrote: Organizations which design systems (in the broad sense used here) are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations. — Melvin E. Conway, How Do Committees Invent? (quoting from Wikipedia) How does Conway's finding affect software language design? How does one specify a language that meets the many different communication structures of one or more organizations and yet still preserve formal properties such as security and provability? How do I make a language that does not end up communicated as list of hundreds of recommended design patterns? How does one zigzag between OO, FP, and other programming approaches? How is this related to machine learning and LLMs? Recently I was asked to help on a project. My immediate response was: Tricky, knowing what I know now, I would write a DSL to produce the necessary content for the project, but we cannot afford that for this project, so no DSL. ...