Re: Hey, blame the private sector!

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura. net!jabba.ess.harris.com!mlb.semi.harris.com!dr3w!smccoy@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU ( Cheshire Cat)]

In article <1993May24.195810.796@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>,
shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Mark Shanks) writes:
|>Well, now I'm REALLY confused. Why does Mr. Strassman espouse process
|>definition as a key to solving DoD software development problems but
|>minimalize the useage of the common (mandated) language (and its
|>associated
|>processes, e.g., compilers, debuggers, etc.) as another consideration
|>in solving the perceived problem? 

Let me clarify.  Throwing Ada at the DoD's software procurement and 
development problems won't treat the disease, just a symptom.  Use of
a standard language and toolset is a GoodThing (tm), but if you don't
know what the big-picture requirements are (that the system is trying
to solve), then it really doesn't matter what tools you use.

|>I am puzzled by your choice of
|>words ("mystical incantations" "wasting time and money" and "that's
|>not the issue, stupid" (stupid!!?)) in the context of any, never
|>mind only DoD, software development and language consideration.
|>

The last quote is a paraphrase of *the* Bill Clinton campaign slogan
("It's the economy, stupid").

|>If Mr.
|>Strassman's objective is to allow (or, OK, FORCE) the contractors
|>to develop defined processes, I think that is a Good Thing. 

Yep, that's it.  A defined and proven process should give predictable
results.

|>How on earth did we get to the point of
|>developing 25 systems that fill the *same* function, anyway?

Have you ever looked in DDRS, the 'standard' data dictionary?  How did
we get 17 different formats for 'address',  7 for 'date',  and multiple
'names'?  The Not-Invented-Here Synydrom, that's how!  (BTW, while I
am not sure that my numbers are exact (i.e., 17), they are in the
ball-park.)

|>If Ada/language isn't THE problem with DoD software development, I can't
|>help but to think it's a component of the problem. 

Difference of perspective.  The problem is that unless you have an
economic reason for building/procuring software, then why are you doing
it?  The Ada issue is a question of the most appropriate solution, not
the problem.

|>your paraphrasing
|>of Mr. Strassman's responses sounds as though he would rather talk 
|>about anything BUT Ada and the DoD.
|>

Mr Strassman felt that Ada is not the central issue with DoD software
development and procurement.

And to answer Mike Feldman, Mr Strassman has formed his own consulting
company (Strassman, Inc.).

-- 
Scott McCoy     Harris ISD 
Staff Eng-SW    Opinions expressed are my own