Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

["William P.Milam" <wmilam@sirius.srl.ford.com>]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> William P.Milam wrote:
> >
> > Have you looked at things like the Mathowrks MATLAB/Simulink/Stateflow
> > product as a option for 'programming by pictures'? Sounds to me
> > that much of what you offer may now be available from commercial
> > vendors, or close enough to warrant arm twisting....
> >
> At the time this was conceived, the people who had the thing closest to
> what we wanted were folks selling design tools for electronic circuits.
> Early work we did here was based on an outside tool wherein we defined
> parts & then "compiled" the diagrams based on the internal format for
> storing the diagrams. This tool eventually gave way to one that was
> entirely home grown by one of our sister-organizations, Hamilton
> Standard.
> 
> I have not looked at any commercial tools recently since my involvement
> in the project is now more one of "end user" rather than "developer"
> (Everyone should be forced to do this at least once! ;-) There may be
> something out there which would fit the bill, but the requirements are
> that it support what our logic designers are used to (sort of) - control
> laws diagrams. (we also support a general flowchart-ish format). For new
> projects, it might be possible to undertake some whole new format of
> diagram, but it would have to support the kind of things that logic
> designers do. 

Well several automotive companies are looking at the 
Mathworks tools for precisely that kind of use, I work in
powertrain...which includes engines...which use the same
control theory that is employed in aircraft. Only we have to 
do it cheaper. No cost overruns in teh consumer business. ;-)

>(I'm also getting too old and cranky to try to once again
> start pleading with them to try something new!)

I suspect that if you are older than I am it ain't gonna be by much.
Being a curmudgeon is all fine and good but new things keep
you young.

> 
> The real value of the tool was that we took diagrams which the designers
> were going to draw anyway and formalized it enough that code could be
> automatically produced from the diagrams. That and being able to
> configuration manage/change control the whole thing meant substantial
> automation of an otherwise labor intensive process.
> 

This is precisely what is happening in automotive, only we are 
buying not developing. At some point you find that in-house tools
are not better and cost more. Then it's time to change. The 
cost to not change can be a great deal higher.


Bill

-- 
************************************************
*                                              *
* All opinions herein expressed are mine and   *
* mine alone. You may choose to ignore them    *
* but I own them. Heck, my kids don't listen   *
* to me, why should you?                       *
*                                              *
* Email: wmilam'at'ford'dot'com                *
************************************************