Tools vs. Parts

Tools vs. Parts

[Wesley Groleau]

A little imagination and analogy:

You are an expert mechanic and automotive engineer,
with two job offers.

Abe's is a well-equipped shop.  A wide variety
of modern, quality tools, well-lighted, clean.

Charlie & Joe's is fairly clean, but the tools stink:
One socket set, with the 12 mm and 9/16" missing
and no Phillips screwdriver.  No "special-purpose"
tools like Torx drivers, wheel-pullers, etc.

The assignment in both shops is to build and maintain
a race car.

Think the choice is obvious?  Well, let's talk to current
workers before we decide ....

Abner: Oh, I'm so glad I got out of Abe's.
   The parts department sucks.  Once I got a carb
   with a jet missing.  I had to find a machine
   screw of the right size and drill the right size
   hole myself.  Here, I'd just grab another carb
   off the shelf.

James: At least you had the right size drill.
   And a screwdriver to put the thing in with!

Carlos: Oh, bull!  Any competent mechanic has the
   skill to clamp a ViseGrips so that it doesn't
   slip and chew up the screw head.  Or the strength
   and coordination to hold a standard screwdriver
   at an angle so that it stays in the slot.

John: Well, maybe that's a little extreme.  But
   it doesn't matter anyway.  We just pull another
   carb off the shelf.

Alex: Well, I'M glad I got INTO Abe's.  I'd much
   rather machine my own carburetor than get one
   from Detroit, where the only job title in the
   testing department is "customer."  We're building
   a race car--you can't just afford to pull over
   and call for a tow when something happens!

Jenny: But even with race cars, stuff happens.
   Would you like to machine a new block when you
   throw a rod on the track?  WE just grab a new
   engine and drop it in.

Andrew: Drop it in how?  You don't have a hoist!

Carrie: So what?  We keep in shape.  Carlos, Abner
   and I lower it in and hold it still while Jenny
   handles the vise grips.

Amos: How do you keep it running smoothly?  No scope
   or timing light....

John: Scopes are over-rated.  More complicated, so
   they malfunction more easily.  A _real_ mechanic
   only needs a tachometer to adjust everything.

Amos: But when I worked there, we didn't have a
   tachometer, either.

Jane: We do now!  We built our own!  Besides, a
   _real_ mechanic can tune an engine by listening
   to it and smelling the exhaust.

Abner:  If you remember, I did that quite well
   when I worked with you.  I can still do it.
   But I really prefer hooking up the scope.

(I could drag this on for a long time .....)

I'm sure we all get the point, no matter which
side of personality spectrum we're on.  But
just in case someone needs a hint, look at the
initials of all the names.

(or make up an acronym for "carb off the shelf")

Re: Tools vs. Parts

[Jim Rogers]

Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<6LidnfIK-pvMZjqjXTWcog@gbronline.com>...
> A little imagination and analogy:
> 
[snip]
> (I could drag this on for a long time .....)
> 
> I'm sure we all get the point, no matter which
> side of personality spectrum we're on.  But
> just in case someone needs a hint, look at the
> initials of all the names.
> 
> (or make up an acronym for "carb off the shelf")


The old "buy or build" issue has been around for a long time.
In recent years the issue has become more important to U.S. 
Department of Defense projects because the Government officials
have legislated the use of Commercial Off The Shelf products to
save cost. The decision logic assumes that a product good enough
for industry is good enough for the military.

In some cases the logic holds, and COTS products are appropriate.

There are other cases where the logic fails dramatically.
COTS hardware has never been built to the usage specifications 
required by the military. These specifications include a very wide
range of temperatures, humidity, and altitude. They also include
resistance to shock and vibration beyond commercial standards.
Finally, military equipment must be sealed against NBC exposure.
(NBC stands for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical).

COTS software is very useful when used the same way it is in 
industry. COTS software is inappropriate in mission critical
systems. Military systems tend to have lifetimes counted in
decades, while commercial software tends to have lifetimes 
counted in months. This means that a military system built 
upon COTS software will be unsupported by the vendor within
18 to 24 months, while it must continue to operate for 30
years.

COTS products also present a major challenge in reliability
predictions. Few commercial vendors will share reliability
data about their products, if they even keep such data. One of the
factors that should be used to choose between COTS and custom
products is reliability. A cheap initial COTS purchase may result
in high maintenance and risk costs if it exhibits low reliability.
Conversely, an expensive initial purchase of a custom product
with high reliability can result in a low overall cost of 
ownership.

Jim Rogers

Re: Tools vs. Parts

[Wesley Groleau]

> The old "buy or build" issue has been around for a long time.

Your response was valid, though the point of my analogy
was that IF forced to choose between good tools and good
parts, some personalities would go for one, some with
another.

My own bias probably short-changed the "other side"

In Java class, I found the available libraries
quite convenient.  But I found sticking them
together with Java instead of with Ada less than fun.

Re: Tools vs. Parts

[Ed Falis]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:23:20 -0500
Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote:

> In Java class, I found the available libraries
> quite convenient.  But I found sticking them
> together with Java instead of with Ada less than fun.
> 

Wasn't much fun sticking them together with AppletMagic either, because
a lot of those libraries just aren't very well-designed.  Try some of
the Eiffel libraries (admittedly less comprehensive) to experience the
contrast.

- Ed