Re: Ada & PDL (ick !)

[cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!strohm@uunet.uu.net (joh n r strohm)]

In article <1992Dec10.113630.3412@gvl.unisys.com>, lonjers@prc.unisys.com (Jim 
Lonjers) writes:

>In article <NX5FVB2w165w@cruiser.uucp> bdl@cruiser.uucp (Bob Lombard) writes:
>>Hi netters:
>>
>>  A question has arisen at work regarding Ada & PDL.  Some work we
>>are currently tasked with requires the use of PDL.  So, we are wondering
>>how the rest of the world approaches this, primarily those working on
>>DoD projects.  
>>
>>  If you indeed use PDL, what do you write your PDL in, Ada itself
>>  or something else ? (Psuedo-english ?)
>>
>>  In the dark ages of Fortran there were pre-processors that would
>>  xlate PDL into semi-compileable code.  Do similar tools exist for
>>  use with Ada ?
>>
>>  Comments ? Reccomendations ? (Flames to dev.null thanks)
>
>Yes, we use compiled Ada as a PDL on our 2167A projects during preliminary
>and detailed design stages.  It works quite well for that purpose.
>Although there are some minor drawbacks, I would personally not choose a
>different form of PDL.
>
>Jim

Which raises my old favorite question:  As I understand it, the output of the
CODING phase of the project is compilable code, while the input to the coding
phase is the design of the (insert buzzphrase of your choice here) to be
coded.

Now we have PDL that is compilable and compiled and is the same lanugage as
the final implementation language for the project.

What I want to know is this:  How SPECIFICALLY does this differ from just
jumping straight into the coding?  I really wonder about this: I don't know
how to be certain in such a case that a real formal DESIGN was done, and
failure to do the DESIGN properly has killed or maimed a lot of projects.