From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,899fc98b2883af4a X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-14 06:49:42 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: mcq95@earthlink.net (Marc A. Criley) Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Quality systems (Was: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died)) Date: 14 May 2003 06:49:42 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <254c16a.0305140549.3a87281b@posting.google.com> References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <17cd177c.0305072114.24f04783@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305090612.261d5a5c@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305091549.48b9c5d9@posting.google.com> <7507f79d.0305121629.5b8b7369@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0305130543.60381450@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.158.183.115 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1052920182 16629 127.0.0.1 (14 May 2003 13:49:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 May 2003 13:49:42 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63765 comp.object:63367 comp.lang.ada:37321 misc.misc:14155 comp.software-eng:19175 Date: 2003-05-14T13:49:42+00:00 List-Id: softeng3456@netscape.net (soft-eng) wrote in message news:<9fa75d42.0305130543.60381450@posting.google.com>... > > There are generally two major approaches people > come up with. > > 1) Hire good people, and give them the tools they > need. Many companies follow this approach, e.g. Microsoft. > (See http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000072.html ) > > 2) Since you are very smart, use your brains to > think up a quality solution. The staff you have, > of course, doesn't matter. You just need to > give them a quality solution, and quality will > follow. Just tell them what to do and make > sure they do it. (In the above URL, see the behavior > at Juno.) For instance, a militaristic language that > will catch all their errors and solve the problem > of human fallibility. Or a methodology that > will make quality flow out their ears. Typical > command-and-conquer stuff is "now everybody will > write a spec in this here format before starting > a new module. This will make our product quality > improve amazingly." But where in the above dichotomy does the following situation fit? A project where: 1) Good people were hired and given the tools they needed. 2) One of those tools was a "militaristic" Ada compiler that caught oversights at both compilation and run-time. 3) A quality software architecture was devised that a) rigorously adhered to an object oriented methodology (OMT), and conformance to that architecture was enforced, and b) intentionally exploited the capabilities of the Ada programming language (such as concurrency and heavy use of typing and subtyping). 4) An SEI CMM Level 3 conformant defect tracking/rework/build/recheck process was utilized that was tight and optimized as hell. Defect identification, analysis, resolution, checkout in a developmental build, and incorporation into the baseline had gotten to the point of same-day turnaround for the overwhelming majority of defects. (Of course the fact that defects were getting more and more sporadic aided that turnaround time.) The end result of the project was a serious weapon command and control system that came in on schedule, on budget, with no late nights or weekends required of either the development or test staff, and the lowest number of unresolved defects in any production release of the system--1 of severity 4 (out of 5, where 1 is critical, and 5 is considered a nice-to-have). In addition, this system was a clean sheet redesign of an existing system, so while it did have the advantage of lessons learned from the previous systems, it was still a "Release 1.0" for all intents and purposes. How could such a thing be? Marc A. Criley