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:

Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:30:17 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

ROGER:  I think the flaw in your scenario is that the Ada project's
development process did not include prototyping, incremental or
evolutionary development, and the resulting earlier user (or customer)
usage & feedback.  That was wrong, or at least a poor project/management
plan, IMO.

There is absolutely nothing about Ada that requires 1970's style
"waterfall" development ("no coding before CDR") and DOD-STD-2767/A style
documentation.  When Walker Royce defined his Ada Process Model in the
mid-1980's he (semi-facetiously) used to say "No coding after PDR!"  What
he was really saying is that the best design review for critical aspects is
conducted over increasingly complete, running prototypes including main
architectural elements and at least glimpses of the most critical/important
(or risky) functionality.  The functionality increases with successive
prototypes, as assessment of risks and user needs evolves based on feedback
& evaluation of the earlier prototypes; ideally, in this paradigm, the easy
stuff is then done last  --  except in reality, a certain portion of it is
necessary to adequately demonstrate the essential objectives of the
incremental objectives.  Still, it's accurate to call this "risk-driven."
Note that "risk" can and often does include include uncertainty about
actual user requirements, not just perceived tough-to-implement
capabilities.  Also note that in these processes, there is no single
earth-shaking demarcation such as the old-fashioned PDR & CDR used to be;
some capabilities are "past CDR" while others aren't even to the stage of
"frozen" requirements.  I could view this as many small "waterfall-ish"
cycles (one per increment or per software component, with reviews &
evaluations for each, if not actually separate prototypes or demos for each
one individually  --  we have several units with noticeable evolution per
demo/delivery) cascading across the system development lifecycle, but even
that is a simplification because it ignores the over-arching management
risk-driven perspective that defines the partioning & scheduling of each
unit, capability set, demo, etc.

Of course, there need be no particular coupling between PL choice and
development process model.  Stating your scenario to imply that Ada is
coupled to a waterfall-ish process and C to an incremental or evolutionary
process masks the real issue which is that incremental/evolutionary rule
today for most developments.  Here at TRW we still have several large Ada
projects going, and virtually every one of them is an evolutionary
development process with very early executable capabilities submitted to
user/customer evaluation.  Ditto for our C/C++ projects (& mixed-language
projects).  I am talking incremental evolutionary "deliveries" scheduled at
frequencies averaging beween 10 weeks and 10 months depending on project,
customer desires, access to users, and other factors.

Please do not read my descriptions of incremental/evolutionary processes as
anti software engineering.  Selecting the right development process is part
of software engineering.  Making judicious use of PL features vs "hacking"
is almost totally divorced from what I have described above.  And, very
good code can be produced in many languages, not just Ada; and that code
could be "maintained" almost as efficiently as Ada if things were done
right during development.  (But of course I believe Ada increases
productivity & quality relative to other languages & their tools!  Some
organizations, including some TRW projects, make the needed investment to
do it right in other PLs, and believe me, in systems houses building large,
long-lived embedded systems, the difference in cost due to PL choice is not
substantial as a percentage.  When you're bending metal as part of your
delivery, e.g., satellites TRW builds, often software costs are a small
minority and it is not hard to justify budgeting what the smart s/w manager
requires.  Personally, I think we over-sold the productivity angle of Ada
in the early days, and managers and doubters have not seen compelling
statistics to bear that out on a system-wide basis.  Ada provides an
"edge," more so for high reliability, RT, etc. systems, and that's enough
to keep Ada viable and thriving, IMO.)

end-tangent

     -Hal



Roger Racine wrote:
>I have an interesting anti-Ada argument that I am having difficulty
>refuting.  Any help?
>
>The argument goes like this:
>
>-----------------------
>Project A uses Ada.  Project C uses C (use C++ or Java if you like).
>
>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).
>
>By the time Project A is ready for a detailed design review, they have
>thousands of pages of design documentation, they have done walkthroughs on
>everything, and they have spent a good deal of money.  By this time,
>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 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."
>
>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.
>-----------------------
>
>I don't think it is sufficient to simply say "The money will be made up
>during maintenance."  While probably true, the initial cost overrun might
>cause the program to be canceled.  And the total cost, while possibly
>higher for the C case, is likely to be more deterministic (you know how
>many bugs are likely, but it is much more difficult to tell how many major
>design problems will occur).
>
>
>
>Roger Racine
>Draper Laboratory, MS 31
>555 Technology Sq.
>Cambridge, MA 02139
>617-258-2489

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