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=1.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50,SYSADMIN autolearn=no
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 21 Jun 93 12:14:42 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!network.ucsd.edu!mvb.sa
ic.com!dayton.saic.com!usenet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (James Hopper)
Subject: Re: Defending Greg
Message-ID: <2048ni$b58@dayub.dayton.saic.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Eric,

there are a variety of life cycle models used in software development
the method you describe is called the waterfall method, and is
in my opinion usually exactly as you ahve stated a big waste.
however this lifecycle method has nothing to do with ada and
predates ada besides.  i used this methodology on projects using
FORTRAN and assembly 10 years ago, so please do not blame this
on Ada.  The course i coauthored presents a number of life cycle
models including a spiral, evolutionary, and prototype models that
fit your design a little code a little paradigm.  in fact the
OO methodologies fit this life cycle very well.  in a project
i did last summer we build a device to simulate the B-1b Offensive
avionics as a trainer for the maintenance crews who load the
nuclear weapons on the B-1b.  it used exactly your model.  i 
did a object oriented requirements analysis using Coade-Yourdan
tequniques, passed off the object specified as they were completed
to the design team who did the design of the appropriate sections
and passed them on the the implementation people. the analysis
and design finished only slightly before the integration tests
got started.  it worked very well for us, and produced a product
that the customer is very happy with.  It also did it at a low
cost and on schedule ( which was very tight).  the point is
don't blame the language for the sins of the program management
team!   jim