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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:3536 alt.cobol:123 comp.software-eng:3278
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!dptg!pegasus!psrc
From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,alt.cobol,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Programming vs. Software Engineering
Summary: this is neither a surprise, nor a victory for Ada
Message-ID: <4561@pegasus.ATT.COM>
Date: 24 Mar 90 06:32:54 GMT
References: <1990Mar21.232702.20713@comm.WANG.COM> <8462@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8462@hubcap.clemson.edu>, billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) writes:
> . . . consider the following descriptions of the STANFINS-R experience:

> Claton J. Hornung, Senior Software Specialist and Project Manager, Computer
> Sciences Corporation:

> It was determined that COBOL programmers who had never worked with a
> structured programming language such as Ada... had preconcieved notions about
> Ada and a strong religious devotion to the COBOL way of design and
> programming.... The training demonstrated that concepts discussed in terms of
> a COBOL programmer facilitated the mind set transition.

?

> After this experience the programmers became more receptive to new ideas and
> appreciated the new found power of Ada and associated software engineering
> concepts.

(Not necessarily in that order?-)

> Many students demonstrated a lack of fundamental understanding in the basic
> concepts of data structures and basic design.  Not only did training have to
> focus on these concepts, but it became necessary to focus on software
> engineering principles and goals as well.

> Kenneth Fussichen, Computer Scientist, Computer Sciences Corporation:

> . . . Preliminary findings indicate that our Ada implementation may
> be significantly more maintainable than its COBOL predecessors

Translation:  take a bunch of folks who hadn't even caught to
structured programming, teach them good coding techniques, and the
resulting code is much better.

Thank *God* for Ada, huh?-)

> The aggregate level of learning for [STANFINS-R project members] is among the
> highest I've ever seen.  More [project members] attend classes in the
> evening, write professional papers, belong to professional organizations and
> book clubs than any other [project] I've seen.  The knowledge of Software
> Engineering principles is the highest of any [project in which] I've
> participated.

These are the guys who had "never worked with a structured programming
language"?  They didn't learn Ada, they were reincarnated!

But Mr. Wolfe, in my opinion, misses the point.  Most software
engineering (requirements analysis, design of data structures and
functions, various kinds of testing, configuration management, etc.) is
completely language independent.  I'm glad STANFINS-R was able to take
people with bad habits and instill good habits in them; but nothing Mr.
Wolfe has posted in this article says anything good about the Ada
programming language.

> Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.