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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,267eec8ad557a7d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: ARIANE-5 Failure (DC-X works) Date: 1996/06/13 Message-ID: <31C0526C.2D99@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 160053822 references: <834097751.22632.0@assen.demon.co.uk> <4pd540$rl2@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <4pd7qc$kp2@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <4pg9gj$ohs@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-06-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > The people writing this [MatrixX] *are* programmers, they are programming. There is > no difference between a program and an executable specification. In fact > that's all a program is -- a specification of what needs to be done with > a method for automatic translation into a machine that does the task. I can't find fault with the technical accuracy of your statement. However, when I say "the people who use MatrixX usually aren't programmers," I mean that they are not always acquainted with knowledge which most people would expect software engineers to know. For example, although MatrixX permits the decomposition of diagrams into modules, the average MatrixX user would probably not think too much about the long-term maintenance effects of their choice of module interfaces. Also, they usually don't consider the effects of algorithm choices on throughput or memory. Therefore, they may not be fully equipped to make decisions about the best language to use when generating code. This decision might -- and I emphasize might -- make a difference in the quality of the final product, however. > The > policy of using Ada applies to the INPUT, not the OUTPUT of the programming > effort, so in this particular case, if the Ada policy applies, a waiver is > needed to program part of the aplication in MatrixX instead of in Ada. Actually, I'm not sure I agree with this. If I deliver the output to the depot, I don't know if I need a waiver or not. When I've asked this question in the past, I've always been told that a waiver is not required. Could you cite where you think the policy excludes the output from consideration? This is pretty important, since some F-22 Ada code is auto-generated, and by your definition I would need a waiver for all these cases! > The use of very high level languages is a very important advance in > proramming technology, one that has been very slow in coming, but the > notion that somehow this eliminates the need for programming of > programmers is absurd and likely to lead to bad decisions. I certainly agree with this! However, if the 4GL decomposes into Ada code, and that Ada code is delivered, I think right now the policy assumes that no waiver is required. (Note that the policy also allows Ada to be written by people who have no business writing programs!) -- LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"