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: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public From: dennison@telepath.com Subject: Re: Draconian coding standards (was: Ada vs C++ vs Java) Date: 1999/01/19 Message-ID: <7827it$1qd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 434406511 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <369F1D39.64A65BC1@sea.ericsson.se> <369f81a9.31040093@news.demon.co.uk> <77ommt$9bo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <77q4p7$diu$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <77vk87$pv9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <77vpeu$unb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <78039c$7vk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7809ne$dqe$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <780fir$j51$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7813fe$3sg$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x15.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 19 15:15:51 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) Date: 1999-01-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7813fe$3sg$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article <780fir$j51$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > Well most certainly the programming team needs to be > involved in developing these standards. > > But I can't buy the idea of not writing them down > carefully. ISO-9000 and many other total quality > approaches are all about documenting how you do things > and then rigorously following these written procedures. Perhaps that's OK, if you see what works first, write *it* down, and change is when your engineers need a change. The problem is when the development people don't have the lattitude to change the document ever. The document becomes the holy commandments etched in stone, rather than a sensible way of doing business. To mangle an analogy from Brooks, it makes a lot of sense that all of Reims cathedral be built in the same style. It does not make sense to require that every cathedral in France be built in the same style. > > But perhaps you think this ISO-9000 stuff is all a bunch > of beaurocratic rubbish :-) Not entirely. I just don't think where specifying where semicolons get placed in source code is the right level of detail to be spelling out in corporate procedures. You might as well have a procedure for where phones are placed on desks! I think ISO has more to do with repeatabilty that quality (which is how it is sold). Not that the two aren't related, but they aren't the same thing either. But I wouldn't put any stock whatsover in an ISO9K certification. I have seen orginizations just write down what they *currently* do in a big hurry right before the ISO audit, pay the exact same auditors extra for a "pre-audit" (to make sure the real audit will go smoothly of course, wink wink, say no more.) then promptly forget about the documents after the audit. So you can see where I could get a bit cynical. The SEI level is more telling to me. T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own