From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05,TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:08:57 GMT
From: gvls1!lonjers@louie.udel.edu  (Jim Lonjers)
Subject: Re: Ada & PDL (ick !)
Message-ID: <1992Dec15.060857.2500@gvl.unisys.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <EACHUS.92Dec10165132@oddjob.mitre.org> eachus@oddjob.mitre.org (Rob
ert I. Eachus) writes:
>
>                            Detailed design is 90% concerned with the
>package specificatations.  Coding is 90% concerned with package bodies
>and subunits.  With a little bit of effort it is possible to have a
>complete compilable design in Ada without writing a line of what would
>be considered executable code in other languages.
>
>     But...the problem that you mention does exist.  It is hard to
>have a hard and fast rule as to what is design and what is coding, and
>use this to keep people from riding off the deep end.  My attitude has
>been that it is better to depend on good faith efforts by the
>programming staff.  If their goals are yours, the project will
>succeed, if they consistantly try to subvert the project, no standards
>or rules will help.  The only case where you have to use judgement
>with Ada is in determining when a "superprogrammer" is creating more
>work than he is accomplishing, rather than flat out telling him to
>stop coding or get off the project.

Bob has stated my views rather accurately.  This "completion criteria"
problem is the same problem that one must consider in the transition from
preliminary to detailed design, and to some extent, in trying to keep
design material out of requirements analysis.  There is no substitute for
good engineering judgement.

Jim Lonjers