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: fac41,5528f4f0452fdf6,start X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5528f4f0452fdf6,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Rebuttal to Ariane paper Date: 1997/08/19 Message-ID: <33FA70EE.20DF@flash.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 265447039 References: <199708180814.KAA28247@rising.irisa.fr> To: Jean-Marc Jezequel Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Reply-To: Ken.Garlington@computer.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-08-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jean-Marc Jezequel wrote: > > I've put on a page with a few Usenet comments about the paper, including a > link to your paper. Please check it at: > > http://www.irisa.fr/pampa/EPEE/Ariane5-comments.html I'll add a link to this in my paper this weekend. Some notes: - I've changed my address from kennieg@flash.net to Ken.Garlington@computer.org. It would help if you could make this change in your paper as well. - In your critique, you state: "Stricly speaking, it is very clear that DBC by itself is neither sufficient (it needs to be integrated in a proper system and software engineering process) nor necessary...", where the "system and software engineering process" references your book. I could find no reference to your book in the Ariane paper, or to a system and software engineering process beyond DBC/Eiffel. It appears that you are agreeing with my critique of the _paper_ (as opposed to your _personal_ position, as described in your rebuttal). - Looking at the table of contents of your book, only chapters 6 and 7 appear to address a system and software engineering process. In particular, for systems analysis, an "object oriented analysis" is defined. Is Eiffel used to describe this analysis (presumably done as part of OMT)? If not, then what approach/notation is recommended, and where is this discussed in the Ariane paper? - You also state: "In his critique, Ken seems to overlook the fact that whereas assertions related to DBC are physically located inside the code, they logically belong to the specification of components. Tools are available to extract this specification. When you want to reuse a component (let's say the perfectly valid Ariane4 SRI) in a new system (let's say Ariane5) the engineer working in a DBC context would check with all possible means) whether the new system is happy with the component contract." This position is not "overlooked"; it is the entire basis of section 3.1 of my paper! To date, no one has indicated any specific flaws with the argument in this section, so far as I can recall. - I am also concerned that you quote Eiffel advocates without also describing my posted rebuttals to their arguments. In particular, the Ted Velikoff post is very misleading, as it addresses an issue that was not the topic of discussion at the time. The original post, to which I responded, said that Eiffel assertions were superior even if they were _never_ executed (either during test or production use). Mr. Velikoff did not see this original post, and assumed a different topic of conversation. - You also quote Robert S. White in this paper. I think his comments reflect those of Dr. Dewar, but as stated, they appear to support Eiffel/DBC instead. I will let Mr. White make any appropriate responses. - I should also note that I find the Meyer response particularly offensive, since it attacks the motives of his critics, denigrates the skills and knowledge of aerospace professions that don't use Eiffel, and does not respond to the substance of the arguments (except to re-state his position once again). However, he has the right to be offensive, and so I'm not suggesting that the quote be changed or retracted. In fact, it contradicts your own personal position: Note the statement "The pitch, if any, is for the method of Design by Contract..." which once again reinforces my claim that the _paper_ is focused on DBC/Eiffel, not on a "system and software engineering process." - Finally, is there any way your link could be posted on www.eiffel.com? Your server doesn't appear to be referenced from there, and so readers of the Ariane paper have no real way to find this supplemental information. > -- > Jean-Marc Jezequel Tel : +33 299 847 192 > IRISA/CNRS Fax : +33 299 847 171 > Campus de Beaulieu e-mail : jezequel@irisa.fr > F-35042 RENNES (FRANCE) http://www.irisa.fr/pampa/PROF/jmj.html