From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Subject: Re: Ada UK conference: SPARK safety: is no delivery better than 1 defect?
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2009-03-12T03:52:20-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <355dc49a-3414-4883-a268-fa3bcc493e7b@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: lB5ul.64542$Rg3.54974@newsfe17.iad
I read your post three times and I still can't figure out what your
point is.
You claim that "iFACTS has failed as an engineering results" without
explaining what the failure is. What are the criteria for success that
iFACTS does not meet, in your opinion? And what are your sources of
information?
Also you say "iFACTS was ending with a lot of deficiencies" but I have
no idea what you are talking about because I am not an insider. Please
provide some details about your claims (links to published reports
would be excellent); explain why you think the "deficiencies" are
attributable to the development process or tools; propose a solution.
That would really contribute to the knowledge and wisdom of your
fellow software engineers. Right now, I for one am totally in the dark
and I have no idea what conclusion I'm supposed to draw from your
post.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-12 10:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-10 5:47 Ada UK conference: SPARK safety: is no delivery better than 1 defect? Michael
2009-03-10 14:54 ` (see below)
2009-03-11 10:34 ` Michael
2009-03-11 14:46 ` (see below)
2009-03-12 10:36 ` Michael
2009-03-12 10:52 ` Ludovic Brenta [this message]
2009-03-16 9:18 ` Michael
2009-03-16 10:29 ` Tim Rowe
2009-03-18 0:54 ` Michael
2009-03-12 12:39 ` (see below)
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-03-10 6:01 Michael
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox