TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: Jerry van Dijk <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 16:49:16 -0800
Reply-To: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (75 lines)
To: Jerry van Dijk & Wesley Groleau et al.
From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.

Although I actually to a large extent agree with Jerry on
"But having a process means you can find them, take corrective measures and
see if your measures worked. (Demming: Plan, Do, Check, Act)."

"Without a process, there is no way to influence the quality level. With a
well defined and well embedded process you will not make the same mistake
twice. Therefor the CMM process influences both cost and quality."

Westley Groves wrote, "You believe that and I believe that.  Nevertheless,
what Bob Leif said is that he has not seen any data _proving_ that.  Nor
have I."

This is an absolutely correct restatement of my views.

I have even published on software processes for medical devices. My
conclusions were never invent your own process and use Ada. However, my
question did not concern the value of having a process, it was directed to
evaluating the utility of a process or tool. If one wants to be flippant, it
is a metaprocess. The process of determining the utility of a process.

Fortunately, our universe is restricted to software development.
Unfortunately, I do NOT believe that a true double blind crossover study is
even conceivable. This would require the same project being developed in
both Ada an another language. However, I believe that it is impossible
because there is no straight-forward way to organize an experiment where
neither the monitor (teacher) nor the student (user) know which programming
language they are using.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jerry van Dijk
> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 1998 3:18 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Language Efficiency was RE: Choose Ada flyer
> > a mistake. True only if all mechanisms in the process are 100%
> > reliable and there are no "bugs" in the process. Allowing for a
> > less rigid interpretation of the statement, the truth would then
> > follow if experiments showed a reduction in "repeated" errors.
> Without a process there is nothing to control. Ad-hoc development
> means speed and flexibility (among other things) and a lot of time
> spend on managing 'incidents', a controlled process (80/20 rule applies
> here) gives less speed and less flexibility and more control and more
> predictability.
> When used it does show, in my experience, a reduction in errors. Note
> there always will be bugs in the process. But having a process means
> you can find them, take corrective measures _and_ see if your
> measures worked. (Demming: Plan, Do, Check, Act).
> > And finally, statement C's implication about cost does
> > not even logically follow.
> If you do not repeat mistakes, you only have to fix them once.
> > also looking for the experimental evidence which correllates CMM
> > level with low cost and high quality. Then there will need to be
> > further research to indicate cause.
> Changing the focus from the product to the process is a first but
> important step in increasing your quality.  Before doubting this,
> you might want to study some basic literature on quality control
> and system enginering.
> Of course, CMM, SPICE, ISO 9000, etc. are not the 'silver bullet'.
> Neither is Ada. But it sure helps.
> Jerry.