Re: ada-c++ productivity

[depriest@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Depriest)]

In article <13570@helios.TAMU.EDU> garys@cs.tamu.edu (Gary W Smith) writes:

>    I do feel, however, that there is a certain amount of waste in the
>    process.  For the most part, the defense dept./GD feel that 2167A is
>    a concrete rule that must be followed.  What I want to know is where
>    has it been shown that a document-driven waterfall model is the *best*
>    process to follow in the design of software.

The main benefit that I see in 2167-type documentation does not lie
within the design/build phase but in the post-deployment software support
environment. The Navy's thrust is for complete organic software maintenance
capability for life of type. Software support responsibility typically
transitions after first deployment, which is several _years_ after the
software Critical Design Review. It's likely that the software engineers
who inherit the code at transition will not be the same folks who had
the review/approval authority at CDR. The extensive 2167 documentation
will help close the familiarity gap.


-Mike DePriest                              |  I had to lay off my
-Naval Aviation Depot Jacksonville          |  disclaimer after Dick
-depriest@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil                 |  Cheney cancelled A-12.