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: f849b,5aa763fe62c20184 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,5aa763fe62c20184 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,5aa763fe62c20184 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,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: 1999/04/29 Message-ID: <37288547.63FA@sirius.srl.ford.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 472361530 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> <372928c2.2024026416@news.ece.cmu.edu> <37274696.132F0FE0@pwfl.com> To: condicma@bogon.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: 1999-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > > Philip Koopman wrote: > > Simulink is a viable alternative to pictures-to-code *except* for the > > Ada requirement for military systems (which may not be that much of an > > issue for future systems). It is certainly adequate for at least some > > aspects of jet engine control applications, and has the advantage of > > already being a commercial product. > > > > I don't own stock in Pratt nor Mathworks, but I am generally familiar > > with both systems. > > > After talking to some folks around here, one of the things which has > potential is a product called Matrix-x (see http://www.isi.com/) This > has not actually undergone any study with respect to integration with > our existing processes (yet), but people in the logic design arena have > looked it over and pronounced it to be "The Future". We did that about 11 years ago. Things change. > We will probably > take a serious look at integrating it when we come up with a new > project. There is a paper out there in SAE land explaining why you might not want to do that versus the above suggestion. If you are curious send e-mail. -- ************************************************ * * * 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 * ************************************************