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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e4b2dce209393666 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Richard D Riehle Subject: Re: Business Week (12/6/99 issue) article on Software Quality Date: 1999/12/07 Message-ID: <82hk54$cbc$1@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 557488153 References: Organization: MindSpring Enterprises X-Server-Date: 7 Dec 1999 00:25:08 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-12-07T00:25:08+00:00 List-Id: >"Michael P. Card" writes: >| I do not know if any of you have seen the 12/6 >| issue of Business Week, but it has a >| feature article on poor software quality. This I have sent the following letter to the editor at Business Week. -- ================================================================= Software development is the only engineering wannabee that euphemizes its mistakes with the cutsey monicker, "bug." The IEEE has suggested a three level designation starting with "mistake/error", that produces a software "defect" which causes an run-time error. We are still a long way from an engineering view of software in practice. Our methods are antiquated, our most commonly used programming languages are characterized by their brittleness, and our education of software developers is archaic. There is some hope on the horizon. An increasing number of universities are offering graduate programs in software engineering. Reliability-oriented programming languages such as Ada and Eiffel are becoming more frequently used for safety-critical software. Consumers, including corporate software users, are becoming more astute about the kinds of questions they ask reagarding the quality issue. Most commercial software developers are so devoted to the financial bottom line, they focus on forcing their customers to upgrade to marginally useful "neat" features rather than pay attention to quality. Many of the larger software publishers think "great" software consists of features reminiscent of the tail fins and excess chrome found on U.S. automobiles circa 1958-1975. Software development for Department of Defense weapon systems has been the exception. The bottom line for a missile is life or death. Engineering becomes more important than programming. A pilot engaging air-to-air missile countermeasures would not be pleased to see a "Blue Screen" message, "Sorry. System Error. Please Reboot." The Business Week article mentions the Boeing 777, a product programmed almost entirely in Ada. This project exemplifies the benefits of the engineering discipline originally applied in the development of military weapon systems. The value of Ada in creating DoD weapon systems is a seldom told story. If one reads the disclaminer on the back of the envelope in which commercial software is packaged, they will see that the software publisher is responsible only for the quality of the media on which the product was delivered. The product itself is not guaranteed, not warrantable, not necessarily going to work as advertised. What other manufacturer could get away with this? Richard Riehle, Suite 30, 2555 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 328-1815 richard@adaworks.com