Decision Driven Design

[lakruzz]

We're invited to collaborate on and offer stewardship on...

https://github.com/Hafeok/decision-driven-design

https://github.com/Hafeok/product-cli
https://github.com/Hafeok/decision-cli

[blikest]

Reading up on this, its vocabulary seems even more massive (and arbitrary) than that of Domain-Driven Design (which in its case I think was justified), and despite the obvious similarity between their names, I find an absence of reflection on influence or divergence.

Business "processes" are discussed in both, but where DoDD talks about "commands" and "events" tieing them together, and the "model" defining their "bounded contexts",

DeDD seems to inroduce a 3rd dimension (the "funnel") on a vocabulary ("artifact", "bundle", "role", to just begin the list) that to me obfuscates DoDD's careful abstraction levels, and claims the word "model" to reference only its own structure.

By contrast, I made these to summarize DoDD recently (based on Wlaschin 2018):

I see that the reputable Hardward Business Review and IBM are creditable with coining a lot of the DeDD terminology, but without being able to judge it yet, I wonder why isn't the DDD discourse honored with engagement.

On this first glance, I would be compelled to moderate this rush of management lingo with that of DoDD, if only to disambiguate the acronym.

For example the "shrinking" model of DeDD's "funnel" seems to be a point of contradiction with the "expanding" model of DoDD's "(ubiquitous) language". In the latter, the model doesn't "shrink", only gets less "abstract" (amplification of the essential, elimination of the unnecessary in Bob Martin's definition).

If higher levels contain information that is "unnecessary" for lower ones and not vice versa, it sounds like a recipe for red tape.