DoD STD-2167A?

DoD STD-2167A?

[Dani Schnider]

Does anybody know what is behind the number DoD 2167A? It must be a standard
for developing ada programs or something like that.

Daniel Schnider.

Re: DoD STD-2167A?

[Ted Dennison]

In article <CwF6Do.HFv@eunet.ch>, schnider@pax.eunet.ch (Dani Schnider) writes:
|> Does anybody know what is behind the number DoD 2167A? It must be a standard
|> for developing ada programs or something like that.
|> 
|> Daniel Schnider.

Well <looking down at his copy> it is titled 

"Military Standard 
   Defense System
 Software Development"

From page ii:

"1. This Military Standard is approved for use by all Departments and Agencies
 of the Department of Defense."

From the forword:

"1. This standard establishes uniform requirements for software development
 that are applicable throughout the system life cycle. The requirements of 
 this standard provide the basis for Government insight into a contractor's
 software development, testing, and evaluation efforts.

 ...
 3. This standard, together with the other DOD and military documents 
 referenced in Section 2, provides the means for establishing, evaluating, 
 and maintaining quality in software and associated documentation.
"

The DOD mentioned is, of course, the United States Department of Defence.

This standard, or something similar, is used for the development of most
defence-related software in the United States. To my knowledge, Ada is not
specificly mentioned in it, or in any of its DIDs.

...Whoops, I'm wrong. It is used Ada as an example in appendix B.

Of course, being an Adaphile, I believe 2167A's emphasis on quality IMPLIES
a use of Ada.

<donning asbestos suit...>

Did I answer your question?

T.E.D.
dennison@romulus.orl.mmc.com

Re: DoD STD-2167A?

[Fred McCall]

In <35mqdo$gqt@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM Ted Dennison writes:

>Of course, being an Adaphile, I believe 2167A's emphasis on quality IMPLIES
>a use of Ada.

Not to mention its insistence on reams of meaningless verbosity in the
way of documentation.  I will merely note that there is a strong move to
do away with requirement of 2167A compliance and have DoD go to 'best
commercial practice' in order to try to get costs down out of the
stratosphere; I will leave the corollery back to Ada to someone else
(but it certainly seems to apply).



--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
merlin@annwfn.com -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: DoD STD-2167A?

[Rod Cheshire]

merlin@annwfn.com (Fred McCall) writes:

>In <35mqdo$gqt@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM Ted Dennison writes:

>>Of course, being an Adaphile, I believe 2167A's emphasis on quality IMPLIES
>>a use of Ada.

>Not to mention its insistence on reams of meaningless verbosity in the
>way of documentation.  I will merely note that there is a strong move to
>do away with requirement of 2167A compliance and have DoD go to 'best
>commercial practice' in order to try to get costs down out of the
>stratosphere; I will leave the corollery back to Ada to someone else
>(but it certainly seems to apply).

stuff deleted.....

Not to mention those who blindly follow 2167A and fail to relize that
it can be tailored to meet _THEIR__ needs.

Re: DoD STD-2167A?

[Lee_Robert_Willis]

>merlin@annwfn.com (Fred McCall) writes:
>
>>In <35mqdo$gqt@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM Ted Denni
s
>on writes:
>
>>>Of course, being an Adaphile, I believe 2167A's emphasis on quality IMPLIES
>>>a use of Ada.
>
>>Not to mention its insistence on reams of meaningless verbosity in the
>>way of documentation. 

>Not to mention those who blindly follow 2167A and fail to relize that
>it can be tailored to meet _THEIR__ needs.

Usually the tailoring must be done way in advance, i.e. if you're going
to tailor the requirements docs, you must get the customer to sign off
on it before the requirements analysis of the contract.  If your going
to tailor the design docs, it must be done before the design phase of 
the contract is entered....  

It has been my unfortunate experience that the people involved before 
phase X don't know or give a damn about the 2167A docs for phase X, and 
thus very little tailoring happens. :-(

   -lee     Lee_Robert_Willis@cup.portal.com
   

Wanted: Ada for OS/2

[Scot A.C. Gould]

Because of the apparent demise of Modula-2, I am looking to learn Ada. 
 - Are there native OS/2 compilers available? 
 - Are there native DOS compilers available?

I appreciate your suggestions.

Scot A.C. Gould
Keck Science Center
Claremont Colleges
Claremont, California

Re: DoD STD-2167A?

[TOM]

In article <CwF6Do.HFv@eunet.ch>, schnider@pax.eunet.ch (Dani Schnider) writes:
> Does anybody know what is behind the number DoD 2167A? It must be a standard
> for developing ada programs or something like that.
> 
> Daniel Schnider.

DoD 2167A is the military standard for Defense System Software Development.

If you poke your nose into it, you will learn everything (almost) that you
ever wanted to know about SRS, IRS, SDD, IDD, STP, STD, and VDD's [the list
goes on!]   That's how we document and develop software in the defense world.


-- 
*******************************************************************************
   /   /   /\     ----      Todd A Sorensen    (505) 828-5611
  /   /   /  \   /          tsorense@dasd.honeywell.com
 /   /   /   /   ---        tas@dasd.honeywell.com
/   /   /   /      /
----   ----     ---         [Now a "dronie"]
********************************************************************************