Re: Critique of Ariane 5 paper (finally!)

[WhiteR@nospamplease.CRPL.Cedar-Rapids.lib.IA.US (Robert S. White)]

In article <33F22AD8.41C67EA6@eiffel.com>, Bertrand.Meyer@eiffel.com says...
>
>It seems that the idea of using modern techniques to
>improve software reliability shocks some people so much
>that they will find no argument too low in their effort
>to suppress it. Won't work.
> 
  This seems to me to be stooping a bit low.  I am more than willing
to use new "validated" methods of improving/doing software engineering.
That is why the company I work for decided it was very worthwhile to
implement the CMM (now independently certified to level 3) and 
ISO-900x (again independently certified).  I have been able to take
company funded courses in OOA, OOD and software inspections taught
by outside contractors brought it just for the course.  I am using 
the UML to document the high level software design of the hard
real time project that I have been working on for the last few
months.  Convince me of the techinical merits of this new engineering
approach/tool/method for my problem domain and I will most willingly
use it.  All(most?) of us engineers are inherently lazy and _want_ 
to use the most error free, efficient, high quality design 
techniques that gain us satisfaction of a job well done.  A job 
poorly done will come back to haunt you unless you change jobs often.
Some of us don't.  We have been taking a very thorough look at JAVA 
technologies and are already committed to making the JVM and JAVA byte
code work well for our applications.

  Argue your position on its technical merits and please do not make
broad generalizations about the motives of authors of critiques of
your statements.
_____________________________________________________________________
Robert S. White         -- An embedded systems software engineer