Re: Ada & PDL (ick !)

[csn!news.den.mmc.com!bob!heck@handies.ucar.edu (Rex Heck)]

In article 24720@mksol.dseg.ti.com, strohm@mksol.dseg.ti.com (john r strohm) wr
ites:


 
>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.
>
>From the syntax viewpoint Ada PDL is the same as Ada code. With Ada PDL for th
e
the preliminary design, interfaces are described in Ada package specifications
and stubs are used for the bodies with Ada comments in free form English text
to descirbe the process to be performed in the body. This gives a riegorous 
definition of the interfaces that can be validated with the Ada compiler. As th
e
design is refined, the comments are enahnced by Ada code. When coding is comple
te,
There will be an English description of the process followed by the code that
implements the process.

Advantages => Software engineers only have to learn one syntax, Ada, and not a
              PDL that is only useful for design.
              The code is documented and commented before coding.
              The Ada environment supports the design phase.
              Only one environtment is required.
Disadvantages => Managers and customers have to learn to read Ada.
              The coder may not update design comments if the implementation is
              different (Of course we know he won't update PDL)

I have found Ada PDL is a good design tool when communicating with software
people. When you get to hardware folks and managers, well then nothing works. :
-)

Rex