LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  June 1999

TEAM-ADA June 1999

Subject:

Re: Anti-Ada Arguments

From:

Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:01:26 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (116 lines)

Tom Rhoads wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
> This is not an "anti-Ada" argument, but is really an anti-process
>argument.

I agree that it is a process argument and an anti-waterfall argument.

Tom quoted Roger:
> Project A uses good Ada development process and spends a lot of effort up
> front to make sure maintenance will be easy.  Project C starts coding
> immediately, and documents the design "later" (i.e. not at all).

Roger also wrote:
> By this time [equivalent to design review for the waterfall project],
> Project C has had a number of demonstrations, has a good deal of problem
> reports (due to the usual C pitfalls), and has made a few major design
> changes based on the early demonstrations to the customer.
...
> At Project C's design review, it is less likely that this will happen
> because the customer has been seeing the system being built.  But even
> if a major design change is needed, Project C's cost will be much lower
> to make the change.

So project C is using an iterative or "spiral model" method, and
considering their main design documentation to be their successive
prototypes.  For a UI-intensive system, this can be a fine approach.

I don't know that I would consider it to be all that slick an approach
for, say, a missile guidance package.  ("Here's our current prototype,
let's load it into a few Tomahawks and see how it does.  Oh -- they
cost how much?  You mean, each?")

And I would note that they are documenting their design somehow, if
only in code structure and identifier names.  Depending on the size
and complexity of the system, this may be a good approach.  If someone
wants to do that, I have a suggestion: use Ada.  Packages and types
make this MUCH easier.

As for a prototyping development cycle, there is absolutely no reason
to not do this with Ada.  In fact, Ada provides significant benefits
to a code-early approach.

- You can use package specs to control your interfaces, getting
  compiler-checked interfaces and fixing confusion between teams,
  early and at a low cost.

- You can build a lot of utility packages early, or more likely select
  the ones you want to re-use from previous projects.

- You can do UI prototypes, if you're building something with
  a UI, and integerate them with the real specs, getting assurance
  that the real system will come together properly.

- If you find that you've made a basic design error, the modularity of
  Ada packages generally limits the amount of code that will have to
  change.  Many times changes at the declarative level will "ripple"
  through the system and fix everything automatically, if you've coded
  carefully (e.g., using attributes and named constants instead of
  typing "magic numbers" directly into the lines of code).

- If you have to totally restructure, your old package structure will
  document what you were doing, and make it easier to move things around
  and ensure you haven't left anything out.

I'm not sure if there is much published on the prototyping benefits of
Ada, but there should be.  You might check at http://www.adahome.com and
the ACM SigAda web site.

Some people think that Ada is worse for rapid prototyping than C, but
that's because you can't slap together some bad code and get it to
kind-of run.  If you intend to upgrade and deliver the prototype (that
is, if it's an early version and not a complete throwaway), Ada beats
C for prototyping.  You can rapidly throw up a design structure, lay
in preliminary or TBD versions of code and have the compiler help you
find them later for upgrade, and just generally keep better track of a
series of exploratory versions.

Anyway, my experience with this kind of prototyping in C and Ada
suggests that Ada does NOT impede you, and it provides some advantages.

> At Project A's design review, the customer sees a major problem in the
> basic design.  There were interpretation problems with the requirements.
> The customer says they need the problem fixed.  The developer says: "That
> will cost $10M.  We have to update thousands of pages of documentation, go
> through all those walkthroughs again, etc."

Project A is badly run.  Some projects have been run this way,
unfortunately.  Worse, some customers have forced their contractors to
work this way, either by refusing to stay involved or by being such a
royal pain to work with that the contractor firewalled them out of the
development loop in self-defense.  I'll agree that this is the
downside of the waterfall model: nothing in the model keeps this from
happening.  It requires a customer who will stay involved, and a
contractor with the skill to present ideas clearly.


> At Project C's design review, it is less likely that this will happen
> because the customer has been seeing the system being built.  But even if a
> major design change is needed, Project C's cost will be much lower to make
> the change.

Oh, Project C has a design review?  What are they reviewing if there
is no design?  You've got to make this fellow play fair.

What exactly is Project C doing, and how exactly does C support it
better than Ada?

Best,
Sam Mize

--
Samuel Mize -- [log in to unmask] (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager