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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f849b,5aa763fe62c20184 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,5aa763fe62c20184 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5aa763fe62c20184 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114f47,9a16bb5c96f2f36a X-Google-Attributes: gid114f47,public From: "William P.Milam" Subject: Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3! Date: 1999/04/23 Message-ID: <372056E0.7007@sirius.srl.ford.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 469939304 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <371B6EC8.36B9C247@pwfl.com> <7fftel$6po@drn.newsguy.com> <371B9A5E.2804AC27@pwfl.com> <371E21B3.7C7616FD@pwfl.com> <371E9BA0.7F070ACC@well.com> <371F38B0.1D24157A@pwfl.com> <371F452A.4021@sirius.srl.ford.com> <371F8DE4.AF112B49@pwfl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Ford Motor Company Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime,comp.arch.embedded,comp.software.config-mgmt Date: 1999-04-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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 * ************************************************