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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,61353b948f976da3,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken Garlington <keg0@flash.net>
Subject: Re: RTSA vs. OO approach to RTE design
Date: 1997/07/12
Message-ID: <33C83A29.A7C@flash.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 256517902
References: <01bc8f26$1daae700$16a9f5cd@asip120>
Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net
Reply-To: keg0@flash.net
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Paul Van Bellinghen wrote:
> 
> My company has been using the principles of Real-Time Structured Analysis
> to design the software for its real-time embedded systems for several years
> (we use Cadre Teamwork with Rational Apex Ada (83) - cross compiled with
> VADScross). They (primarily our SW engineering manager) claim that they
> have nothing against an object oriented approach but that none of their SW
> engineers are trained in applying its principles to an actual system
> design. Not being all that knowledgeable in OO design myself, I was
> wondering if anyone  is familiar with both approaches to requirements
> design/implementation and can give an opinion as to which approach is
> better for RT embedded systems?

Keep in mind there is a third option: use RTSA for requirements and an
obejct-based approach for design. The Software Productivity Consortium's
ADARTS methodology (which has been used on multiple 1MSLOC+ real-time
projects) is one such example which is targeted to use with Ada 83. SPC
provides extensive training and support. (Some Lockheed Martin companies
are members of the SPC).

> 
> --
> Paul Van Bellinghen
> Staff Analyst
> Lockheed Martin Fairchild
> pvanbell@mhv.net